This coming weekend marks the completion of the first month of 'There's My Two Cents'. As such, I wanted to take a moment to reflect a bit. My initial intention with this blog was to only post one message a day, but with all the action on the shamnesty bill things worked out quite a bit differently. That's okay, though, since this has been great fun for me; I'm looking forward to continuing!
I want to share something with all of you that I find very encouraging. Since I started this blog, the number of people visiting every day has been steadily growing (don't worry, my hit counter doesn't tell me WHO is visiting, just the generic total numbers). For example, an average of 5 different people visited per day for a total average of 10 visits in the first week of June. This past week it had risen to an average of 15 different people per day for a total average of 25 visits per day. These averages go another 50% higher if I factor out the weekends. The highest single-day count was 22 different people and 41 total visits, and since June 1st almost 180 different people have visited for a total number of almost 450 visits overall!
The most exciting part (for me) is that 43% of all these visitors have come back at least 8 times, and almost 30% have come back at least 26 times. These numbers tell me that people are visiting a lot, and that a good chunk of you are coming back at least daily. Cool! Ultimately, this means the time and effort I'm spending on this blog is being well spent. So, THANK YOU all for visiting, and please keep it up! :)
Finally, I have a favor to ask of you. I'd love to see a lot more growth here, and referrals will be critical for that to happen. So, if you like reading this blog and think it's worth your time to visit regularly, would you send it around to people you know? I'd appreciate your willingness to help me grow this little project of mine. Thank you in advance!
One last note - I'm going to be out of touch for a couple days this weekend, so I won't post another blog until early next week. Topics will probably include some of the Supreme Court's recent decisions (racial considerations in schools and political contributions), some general thoughts on the Republican party, and whatever else happens over the weekend.
See ya' then!
Friday, June 29, 2007
Fun and Frivolity: Now That's Justice!
In addition to restoring a little bit of faith in the American justice system, this one made me chuckle. An article in the Washington Post describes how an administrative law judge in Washington, D.C. sued a neighborhood dry cleaners business that lost a pair of his pants. Apparently, this judge was so distressed by the loss of his pants that he felt defrauded by the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign posted at the business and wanted $54 million to soothe his anguish.
After refusing several offers (for as much as $12,000) to settle, the judge took the case to trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the complaining judge was awarded absolutely nothing.
In addition, he was ordered to pay the court costs (a few thousand dollars) of the dry cleaners, and there is a possibility that he'll be further ordered to pay the dry cleaners' attorney fees accrued over the two-year trial, which total over $100,000.
Now that's justice!
After refusing several offers (for as much as $12,000) to settle, the judge took the case to trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the complaining judge was awarded absolutely nothing.
In addition, he was ordered to pay the court costs (a few thousand dollars) of the dry cleaners, and there is a possibility that he'll be further ordered to pay the dry cleaners' attorney fees accrued over the two-year trial, which total over $100,000.
Now that's justice!
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Winners and Losers
So, now that the smoke is clearing from the shamnesty debate, who were the winners and losers? This is all my opinion, of course, so take it with a grain of salt. But, if I had to specify winners, I'd say:
1. YOU, the American people... ...for standing up and refusing to be ignored
2. the new conservative leadership: DeMint, Sessions, Cornyn, Inhofe, Vitter, and the others who led this charge; these guys have propelled themselves into positions of trust with the American people and proven they can take the heat
3. conservativism in general: Returning the final word to the people instead of relying on big government, saying no to massive new entitlements, and upholding the laws of the land.
It seems to me that there are a whole lot of losers today. In my opinion, the biggest losers are:
1. President Bush: He bet a lot of political capital -- pretty much all he had left -- on this domestic policy move, and it failed. It's almost mind-boggling how he (and his advisors) could fall so badly out of touch with the American people. However, the silver lining is that he knows exactly what would gain him some monster political capital right back - enforcement.
2. the Republican pro-amnesty Senators: Don't be surprised if they go home after their current term is served out. It's extremely difficult to rebound after taking a vehement public stance against 80% of your constituency, and this is a particularly hot issue in a lot of areas around the country. And, the new media doesn't forget things like this, so you can count on it coming up at election time.
3. Sam Brownback: This one is obvious. I'm sure there were others who planned to do exactly what he did, but he was the one who got caught switching his vote once the outcome became apparent. A major screw-up, and the end of his presidential bid.
3. the Democratic leadership This one isn't quite so obvious. There are two points here. First, the Democrats lost face. They hold the majority in the Senate, and they (Harry Reid in particular) did everything possible to control this bill, from creating it in secret sessions to unprecedented procedural trickery to outright deception. Reid and his comrades squashed true debate on the merits of the bill, kept as much shadow on the provisions and amendments as possible for as long as possible, and were still unable to push it through. Though the mainstream media is spinning this as "Bush's immigration plan" -- and though that is certainly true -- the fact remains that this was the Democrats' fight to lose, and they lost it. For a party that supposedly had a 'mandate' when they took over power in January, they haven't been able to pull out of Iraq, they haven't been able to get amnesty passed, they haven't been able to do anything significant. The more failures they have, the weaker they look when 2008 rolls around. The second point is much more troubling for long-term Democratic prospects. In 2006, they implemented a brilliant strategy of running conservative Democrats versus moderate Republicans, and it worked. They got in and gained the majority. Now, it appears that the strategy may be backfiring a bit - there were 15 Democrats that voted against cloture today, and three of them were freshmen (McCaskill included) who appeared to be quite content breaking from their own leadership. If Reid and the other long-timers on the Democrat side of the aisle can't control their newbies and get them in line with the Democrat agenda, this could spell trouble for the precariously thin Democrat majority.
Just a few observations for you to think about.
One Last Note On Shamnesty
Please take a moment to send feedback to your Senators and thank them for their representation of you on the shamnesty bill. While it is their job to represent us accurately, this issue shows that they aren't always necessarily motivated to do so; besides, they are still human and therefore deserve courteous treatment. If we hammer them for their failures or shortcomings, it's only fair to praise them for a job well done.
There's my two cents.
1. YOU, the American people... ...for standing up and refusing to be ignored
2. the new conservative leadership: DeMint, Sessions, Cornyn, Inhofe, Vitter, and the others who led this charge; these guys have propelled themselves into positions of trust with the American people and proven they can take the heat
3. conservativism in general: Returning the final word to the people instead of relying on big government, saying no to massive new entitlements, and upholding the laws of the land.
It seems to me that there are a whole lot of losers today. In my opinion, the biggest losers are:
1. President Bush: He bet a lot of political capital -- pretty much all he had left -- on this domestic policy move, and it failed. It's almost mind-boggling how he (and his advisors) could fall so badly out of touch with the American people. However, the silver lining is that he knows exactly what would gain him some monster political capital right back - enforcement.
2. the Republican pro-amnesty Senators: Don't be surprised if they go home after their current term is served out. It's extremely difficult to rebound after taking a vehement public stance against 80% of your constituency, and this is a particularly hot issue in a lot of areas around the country. And, the new media doesn't forget things like this, so you can count on it coming up at election time.
3. Sam Brownback: This one is obvious. I'm sure there were others who planned to do exactly what he did, but he was the one who got caught switching his vote once the outcome became apparent. A major screw-up, and the end of his presidential bid.
3. the Democratic leadership This one isn't quite so obvious. There are two points here. First, the Democrats lost face. They hold the majority in the Senate, and they (Harry Reid in particular) did everything possible to control this bill, from creating it in secret sessions to unprecedented procedural trickery to outright deception. Reid and his comrades squashed true debate on the merits of the bill, kept as much shadow on the provisions and amendments as possible for as long as possible, and were still unable to push it through. Though the mainstream media is spinning this as "Bush's immigration plan" -- and though that is certainly true -- the fact remains that this was the Democrats' fight to lose, and they lost it. For a party that supposedly had a 'mandate' when they took over power in January, they haven't been able to pull out of Iraq, they haven't been able to get amnesty passed, they haven't been able to do anything significant. The more failures they have, the weaker they look when 2008 rolls around. The second point is much more troubling for long-term Democratic prospects. In 2006, they implemented a brilliant strategy of running conservative Democrats versus moderate Republicans, and it worked. They got in and gained the majority. Now, it appears that the strategy may be backfiring a bit - there were 15 Democrats that voted against cloture today, and three of them were freshmen (McCaskill included) who appeared to be quite content breaking from their own leadership. If Reid and the other long-timers on the Democrat side of the aisle can't control their newbies and get them in line with the Democrat agenda, this could spell trouble for the precariously thin Democrat majority.
Just a few observations for you to think about.
One Last Note On Shamnesty
Please take a moment to send feedback to your Senators and thank them for their representation of you on the shamnesty bill. While it is their job to represent us accurately, this issue shows that they aren't always necessarily motivated to do so; besides, they are still human and therefore deserve courteous treatment. If we hammer them for their failures or shortcomings, it's only fair to praise them for a job well done.
There's my two cents.
The Votes
The following are the Senators who really sparkled on the shamnesty bill, leading the charge to stand up for Americans and the enforcement of the law:
Jim DeMint (R - SC)
Jeff Sessions (R - AL)
John Cornyn (R - TX)
James Inhofe (R - OK)
David Vitter (R - LA)
The following are the Senators who shamed themselves by leading the effort to stand up for illegal aliens, terrorists, and complete disregard for the rule of law:
Ted Kennedy (D - MA)
John McCain (R - AZ)
Jon Kyl (R - AZ)
Lindsey Graham (R - SC)
Arlen Specter (R - PA)
Mel Martinez (R - FL)
The award for The Supreme Overlord of Dirty Senate Tricks goes to:
Harry Reid (D - NV)
If you're a Republican, the following Senators should be watched very carefully since they were playing politics and playing with fire:
Mitch McConnell (R - KY)
Trent Lott (R - MS)
Sam Brownback (R - KS)
Here's a summary of all the votes cast on this cloture:
Keep these people in mind as you hear their names in the news over the next few months, especially when their next elections roll around. Remember how they've acted and what they've stood for, and think about whether or not you want them representing you.
There's my two cents.
Jim DeMint (R - SC)
Jeff Sessions (R - AL)
John Cornyn (R - TX)
James Inhofe (R - OK)
David Vitter (R - LA)
The following are the Senators who shamed themselves by leading the effort to stand up for illegal aliens, terrorists, and complete disregard for the rule of law:
Ted Kennedy (D - MA)
John McCain (R - AZ)
Jon Kyl (R - AZ)
Lindsey Graham (R - SC)
Arlen Specter (R - PA)
Mel Martinez (R - FL)
The award for The Supreme Overlord of Dirty Senate Tricks goes to:
Harry Reid (D - NV)
If you're a Republican, the following Senators should be watched very carefully since they were playing politics and playing with fire:
Mitch McConnell (R - KY)
Trent Lott (R - MS)
Sam Brownback (R - KS)
Here's a summary of all the votes cast on this cloture:
Keep these people in mind as you hear their names in the news over the next few months, especially when their next elections roll around. Remember how they've acted and what they've stood for, and think about whether or not you want them representing you.
There's my two cents.
The Aftermath of Shamnesty
The final result was 46-53, only a single vote better than the one a few weeks ago. My understanding is that this amnesty bill is now dead for at least a couple years since most presidential candidates don't want to have to deal with immigration during their campaigns. Whew!
Here is how your local Senators voted:
- Bond (Rep, MO): NO
- McCaskill (Dem, MO): NO
- Roberts (Rep, KS): NO
- Brownback (Rep, KS): YES/NO
Summary: Roberts and McCaskill held firm against amnesty from the start, and Bond came around at the last minute. Brownback, in a stunning show of political cowardice, initially voted YES on the cloture vote, then changed his vote to NO before the voting was over (like a rat deserting a sinking ship). He is clearly pro-amnesty -- and has been since the start -- but by changing his vote at the last minute, he proved he doesn't even have the guts to stick to his convictions. Kansas voters: send him home after his term is up; even if you wanted amnesty, I can't imagine anyone would want a spineless wish-wash like Brownback representing you. Regardless, it's a certainty that his presidential campaign has zero chance of success.
Major, major kudos go out to all of you who put democracy into action by contacting your Senators to make your opinions known. Your collective voice is truly the only reason this bill was killed. This is not activism, but rather active participation in your government, which is vital to how our system of government works. Good for you!
You can now expect to hear a bunch of whining and belly-aching about "fairness" and "ugliness", "racism" and "evil talk radio", and probably a lot of other shallow attempts to insult you -- the stupid American public who doesn't know what's good for yourselves -- but don't let it bother you. Given the overwhelming opposition to this bill despite the insults already leveled at you by the 'deal-makers', I doubt you will. The fact is that the only people in the entire country who wanted this shamnesty were a few of these soon-to-be-former Senators, the White House, millions of illegal aliens, and terrorists. Call me crazy, but I'm glad they didn't get what they wanted!
There's my two cents.
Here is how your local Senators voted:
- Bond (Rep, MO): NO
- McCaskill (Dem, MO): NO
- Roberts (Rep, KS): NO
- Brownback (Rep, KS): YES/NO
Summary: Roberts and McCaskill held firm against amnesty from the start, and Bond came around at the last minute. Brownback, in a stunning show of political cowardice, initially voted YES on the cloture vote, then changed his vote to NO before the voting was over (like a rat deserting a sinking ship). He is clearly pro-amnesty -- and has been since the start -- but by changing his vote at the last minute, he proved he doesn't even have the guts to stick to his convictions. Kansas voters: send him home after his term is up; even if you wanted amnesty, I can't imagine anyone would want a spineless wish-wash like Brownback representing you. Regardless, it's a certainty that his presidential campaign has zero chance of success.
Major, major kudos go out to all of you who put democracy into action by contacting your Senators to make your opinions known. Your collective voice is truly the only reason this bill was killed. This is not activism, but rather active participation in your government, which is vital to how our system of government works. Good for you!
You can now expect to hear a bunch of whining and belly-aching about "fairness" and "ugliness", "racism" and "evil talk radio", and probably a lot of other shallow attempts to insult you -- the stupid American public who doesn't know what's good for yourselves -- but don't let it bother you. Given the overwhelming opposition to this bill despite the insults already leveled at you by the 'deal-makers', I doubt you will. The fact is that the only people in the entire country who wanted this shamnesty were a few of these soon-to-be-former Senators, the White House, millions of illegal aliens, and terrorists. Call me crazy, but I'm glad they didn't get what they wanted!
There's my two cents.
The Shamnesty Bill (Part 2) Dies Again!!!
The voice of the American people has won the day!
The Senate just finished voting on cloture for the shamnesty bill, and there were 53 NO votes.
More analysis later.
The Senate just finished voting on cloture for the shamnesty bill, and there were 53 NO votes.
More analysis later.
Flood of Opposition
Apparently, so many people have been calling in opposition to this shamnesty bill that the Senate's telephone system has shut down.
Great job, everyone! :)
Great job, everyone! :)
It's About to Happen...
If you aren't watching C-Span, you can keep track of moment-by-moment happenings at Michelle Malkin's website.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Today's Action Summarized
Well, today was a very busy one for the shamnesty bill. The cloture vote on Tuesday passed by a count of 64-35, prompting 30 hours of debate on a few amendments personally selected by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. After setting the process into motion, Reid ordered the start of debate on those amendments despite the fact that they were still being written. Yes, you read that right - the proposed legislation was not yet finished by the time debate began (John Cornyn, one of the opposition leaders, was actually handed the 400-page document while he was complaining about not having a chance to review it before 'debating' on it). Reid stalled and side-stepped and stone-walled for much of today, preventing pretty much all honest debate and the evaluation of many amendments, but a few did get voted upon. Tomorrow (probably around 9:30am) will be the second and final cloture vote -- again requiring 60 votes to pass -- that will likely determine the bill's fate.
So where do things stand at the moment? An article in the Washington Post sums it up: "Immigration Measure Appears Imperiled Again". Whereas supporters of the bill sounded confident yesterday, the opposition is feeling its oats today. Either way, tomorrow is the day of reckoning.
Key Facts
Now, here are some key facts you need to know. First, a handful of Senators (including Bond) voted YES on the Tuesday cloture vote because they wanted to see what happened with their own amendments. Four of them (Bond, Dodd, Webb, and Menendez) had their amendments fail. There is a very good chance that they will switch over on Thursday's cloture vote to NO. A fifth Senator (Domenici) has indicated that he will also switch to a NO vote.
If all this happens, there will only be 59 votes in favor of cloture, and the shamnesty bill dies again. This time it should be permanent.
Another key point to keep in mind is that one of the amendments designed to potentially derail the extremely fragile coalition of deal-makers (so-called 'poison pills' or 'killer amendments') did not get rejected, so that could cause some defections, too.
Of course, there will be back-room arm-twisting right up until the vote tomorrow, so it's still up in the air - it could ultimately go either way.
Next Steps
If the cloture vote passes on Thursday, then comes the final vote on the actual bill, but it's essentially a given to pass since it only needs 51 votes rather than the 60 for cloture. Any Senator who votes YES on cloture and NO on the bill itself is trying to stand on both sides of the fence - shame on them! If the vote on the bill passes, it will move to the House, where fierce Republican opposition (and likely a good chunk of Democrat opposition, too) is spoiling for a fight. So, there is still a long road before this shamnesty would become law.
If the cloture vote does not pass Thursday, the bill is dead.
The Last Gasp
Regardless of your stance, you have a little less than 12 hours to make one last round of contacts to your Senators to let them know your thoughts. Thursday's cloture vote is the money vote!
I hate to beat a dead horse, but call/e-mail/fax your Senators tonight and first thing in the morning to make sure this thing is locked up. Don't think that your one little opinion doesn't matter, because literally the only thing that has moved the Senate away from shamnesty is millions of "one little opinions" of American citizens just like you. Keep it up for a few more hours, and this thing will hopefully be put to bed for good.
There's my two cents.
So where do things stand at the moment? An article in the Washington Post sums it up: "Immigration Measure Appears Imperiled Again". Whereas supporters of the bill sounded confident yesterday, the opposition is feeling its oats today. Either way, tomorrow is the day of reckoning.
Key Facts
Now, here are some key facts you need to know. First, a handful of Senators (including Bond) voted YES on the Tuesday cloture vote because they wanted to see what happened with their own amendments. Four of them (Bond, Dodd, Webb, and Menendez) had their amendments fail. There is a very good chance that they will switch over on Thursday's cloture vote to NO. A fifth Senator (Domenici) has indicated that he will also switch to a NO vote.
If all this happens, there will only be 59 votes in favor of cloture, and the shamnesty bill dies again. This time it should be permanent.
Another key point to keep in mind is that one of the amendments designed to potentially derail the extremely fragile coalition of deal-makers (so-called 'poison pills' or 'killer amendments') did not get rejected, so that could cause some defections, too.
Of course, there will be back-room arm-twisting right up until the vote tomorrow, so it's still up in the air - it could ultimately go either way.
Next Steps
If the cloture vote passes on Thursday, then comes the final vote on the actual bill, but it's essentially a given to pass since it only needs 51 votes rather than the 60 for cloture. Any Senator who votes YES on cloture and NO on the bill itself is trying to stand on both sides of the fence - shame on them! If the vote on the bill passes, it will move to the House, where fierce Republican opposition (and likely a good chunk of Democrat opposition, too) is spoiling for a fight. So, there is still a long road before this shamnesty would become law.
If the cloture vote does not pass Thursday, the bill is dead.
The Last Gasp
Regardless of your stance, you have a little less than 12 hours to make one last round of contacts to your Senators to let them know your thoughts. Thursday's cloture vote is the money vote!
I hate to beat a dead horse, but call/e-mail/fax your Senators tonight and first thing in the morning to make sure this thing is locked up. Don't think that your one little opinion doesn't matter, because literally the only thing that has moved the Senate away from shamnesty is millions of "one little opinions" of American citizens just like you. Keep it up for a few more hours, and this thing will hopefully be put to bed for good.
There's my two cents.
Bond Amendment Is Killed
Senator Kit Bond's amendment was just killed (56-41). Now there is literally no excuse for him to vote YES on cloture. According to what he's previously said, he should now be counted in the group voting NO on cloture. We'll see what he actually does...
The $4.4 billion 'Border Security' Compromise...
...is actually not a compromise at all. Senator Jim DeMint's office put out a press release today based on a report from the Congressional Research Service stating that a major loophole was found which would allow this money to be used to implement the provisions of the shamnesty bill instead of the promised border security.
"This is just another example of how this bill claims to do one thing but does something else entirely. It’s another example of an empty promise being used to buy votes for amnesty," said Senator DeMint. "The supporters of this bill have been running around trying to convince people that this money will be used to secure the border first, but now we know that’s not the case. If you read the fine print, the bill says this money can also be used for amnesty."
Let me ask you these questions: if this bill is such a good thing for America and the American people, why are these 'deal-makers' resorting to closed-door sessions, process violations, stunted debate, unprecedented procedural tactics, and deception/outright lies to get it passed? And how can there possibly be fair and open debate if, as my previous blog indicates, the documentation being debated hasn't even been released to those debating it yet?
You know the answers.
There's my two cents.
"This is just another example of how this bill claims to do one thing but does something else entirely. It’s another example of an empty promise being used to buy votes for amnesty," said Senator DeMint. "The supporters of this bill have been running around trying to convince people that this money will be used to secure the border first, but now we know that’s not the case. If you read the fine print, the bill says this money can also be used for amnesty."
Let me ask you these questions: if this bill is such a good thing for America and the American people, why are these 'deal-makers' resorting to closed-door sessions, process violations, stunted debate, unprecedented procedural tactics, and deception/outright lies to get it passed? And how can there possibly be fair and open debate if, as my previous blog indicates, the documentation being debated hasn't even been released to those debating it yet?
You know the answers.
There's my two cents.
Harry Reid At Work Ramming His Bill Through...
At National Review Online's The Corner, Kathryn Jean Lopez posts an e-mail she received from Brian Darling, director of Senate relations at the Heritage Foundation:
Someone once said not to watch how sausage or legislation are made. Today especially I prefer to be at the sausage factory.
As if the Senate floor situation could get any worse, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's staff is now rewriting the Clay Pigeon amendment behind closed doors. It is the intent of the Majority Leader to bring this new unread Amendment up without the Republicans seeing the language. Yesterday Senator Reid did not have his massive 373 page amendment ready when he started debate on it and mistakes were made in the initial drafting. This fact was not discovered until Republicans objected to waiving the reading of the bill, and the Senate Clerk had nothing to read. Shockingly, Reid scrambled around, put the floor in morning business for a few hours, and then allowed Kennedy's staff make final changes to the amendment. The language was finally made available around 5:30 pm and Reid "graciously" gave Republicans the night to go through it before moving to it this morning.
This morning Republicans announced that Reid's amendment did not include the Sessions EITC provision in the touchback section, despite the fact that all previously passed amendments were supposed to be incorporated in the bill and the Clay Pigeon amendment. This oversight is the only mistake so far found, yet there may be other mistakes and intentional omissions in the 373 page amendment. This morning Reid put the floor back in morning business and sent his staff off to rewrite the mega amendment once again. Today, "the most deliberative body in the world," is left to debate legislation that they do not have a copy of. When Republicans asked if the amendment could be read once it was written, Reid objected because "it would take up too much time." Reid is promising the changes in the new amendment to be minimal, yet he has yet to allow Republicans to see the amendment, much less to check the changes.
This is a true outrage and shows the extreme measures the proponents of Amnesty will use to pass this bill, without any significant debate, nor any time to read.
This is not unexpected, but it should be shocking to watch it happen. This is a gross violation of the Senate's processes, and Reid should be called to account for it. The immediate issue, of course, is to keep up the pressure on your Senators to vote NO on cloture, killing the bill for good.
There's my two cents.
The Bigger Picture Is Even More Disturbing
I finally saw someone put into words what I think is the root cause of a lot of the frustration and anger about what the Senate is doing on this shamnesty bill. It was actually in a comment on a blog, so I have no idea who this guy is, but I think he's exactly right:
"This is a very important bill, not just because of the humongous impact it will have on our borders and sovereignty, but there is another consideration. The population as a whole: Democrat, Republican, Independent, liberal, conservative, moderate seem to be all in opposition to this bill. However, the Senate and possibly the House seems is intent on pushing this through regardless of the people’s will. If this bill passes Senate and House and is signed by the President, Congress will be essentially saying that it is no longer the people’s representative institution–that it answers to others. Now, while this has pretty much been a tacit and not so tacit given amongst many, the passage of this bill regardless of the overwhelming popular opposition to it will amount to a bold faced statement of fact.
Matt Helm on June 26, 2007 at 9:09 PM"
Basically, you and I no longer have representation.
Representation is one of the most fundamental rights of Americans, one of the precise reasons that America is so great. For our elected representatives -- note the irony there -- to take that right away is beyond the pale. To add insult to injury, they're doing it to buy a few votes from people who shouldn't even be in America, some of whom are actively seeking to kill Americans! That's why so many people from so many walks of life are angry about what has happened with this shamnesty bill.
I still firmly believe that this bill will fail on Thursday's cloture vote (largely due to continuing pressure from all sides), and that it will not even get out of the Senate. If that is the case, it will restore a small measure of my confidence in my representatives and others around the country, but they've got a lot of work to do to gain my trust again. It is clear that our leaders cannot be implicitly trusted to do what's in the best interest of Americans anymore.
This is one of the reasons I started this blog - because the simple act of paying attention is so critically important, and I feel strongly that whether you agree with me or not, the fact that you're paying attention is what counts.
There's my two cents.
"This is a very important bill, not just because of the humongous impact it will have on our borders and sovereignty, but there is another consideration. The population as a whole: Democrat, Republican, Independent, liberal, conservative, moderate seem to be all in opposition to this bill. However, the Senate and possibly the House seems is intent on pushing this through regardless of the people’s will. If this bill passes Senate and House and is signed by the President, Congress will be essentially saying that it is no longer the people’s representative institution–that it answers to others. Now, while this has pretty much been a tacit and not so tacit given amongst many, the passage of this bill regardless of the overwhelming popular opposition to it will amount to a bold faced statement of fact.
Matt Helm on June 26, 2007 at 9:09 PM"
Basically, you and I no longer have representation.
Representation is one of the most fundamental rights of Americans, one of the precise reasons that America is so great. For our elected representatives -- note the irony there -- to take that right away is beyond the pale. To add insult to injury, they're doing it to buy a few votes from people who shouldn't even be in America, some of whom are actively seeking to kill Americans! That's why so many people from so many walks of life are angry about what has happened with this shamnesty bill.
I still firmly believe that this bill will fail on Thursday's cloture vote (largely due to continuing pressure from all sides), and that it will not even get out of the Senate. If that is the case, it will restore a small measure of my confidence in my representatives and others around the country, but they've got a lot of work to do to gain my trust again. It is clear that our leaders cannot be implicitly trusted to do what's in the best interest of Americans anymore.
This is one of the reasons I started this blog - because the simple act of paying attention is so critically important, and I feel strongly that whether you agree with me or not, the fact that you're paying attention is what counts.
There's my two cents.
The Truth Seeps Out...
Some analysis of Harry Reid's hand-picked amendments for the shamnesty bill reveal exactly what was expected - blatant departures from the promises made by the 'deal-makers' to have a fair and equitable bill.
Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters raises the following questions:
Background checks. One 'compromise' was that the 24-hour background check constraint was supposed to be lifted. It's back in now.
The amazing permanent 'temporary' visa. The Z-visa can be renewed an unlimited number of times.
Non-working status. Z-visa non-immigrants older than 65 can stay even if they're not working. If they're not working, why are they here?
Inconsistent line-jumping. Z-visa immigrants can't file for residency until 30 days after eligibility for those who legally applied before May 1, 2005. This means they can't 'cut in line' in front of people who are already in line...unless they've only been in line for the past two years.
Law enforcement...good? Previously, only law-enforcement activity relating to immigration and national security would be shared from Z-visa applications; now it's any law enforcement. This might actually be a good thing, if it holds. Small consolation, though, given the rest of the bilge included.
Payment plans. 80% of all penalties paid by Z-visa applicants will be done through installment plans. This is understandable, but it also means the government will have to manage a system to track all of that. See all previous mentions of incompetency in the US government for how well that should work out.
Guest workers aplenty. Initially, the guest worker count allowed by this bill was 400,000, but was then whittled down to 200,000. Now, apparently, it will be 1.5 million!
Overall confusion. There are several examples of cross purposes in this bill, which will lend general confusion to both supporters and opponents of the bill. One example I can think of is that there are measures that require security triggers first while at the same time using time passing to dictate when Z-visas are given out (without regard to triggers).
As you can see, only a few hours have passed, and there are already major signs of back-tracking on the amendments that Reid promised. In addition, there's still the fact that if the bill passes out of the Senate, the committee to reconcile the bill with the House has already promised to remove any offending amendments.
It's getting uglier by the hour. As promised.
There's my two cents.
Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters raises the following questions:
Background checks. One 'compromise' was that the 24-hour background check constraint was supposed to be lifted. It's back in now.
The amazing permanent 'temporary' visa. The Z-visa can be renewed an unlimited number of times.
Non-working status. Z-visa non-immigrants older than 65 can stay even if they're not working. If they're not working, why are they here?
Inconsistent line-jumping. Z-visa immigrants can't file for residency until 30 days after eligibility for those who legally applied before May 1, 2005. This means they can't 'cut in line' in front of people who are already in line...unless they've only been in line for the past two years.
Law enforcement...good? Previously, only law-enforcement activity relating to immigration and national security would be shared from Z-visa applications; now it's any law enforcement. This might actually be a good thing, if it holds. Small consolation, though, given the rest of the bilge included.
Payment plans. 80% of all penalties paid by Z-visa applicants will be done through installment plans. This is understandable, but it also means the government will have to manage a system to track all of that. See all previous mentions of incompetency in the US government for how well that should work out.
Guest workers aplenty. Initially, the guest worker count allowed by this bill was 400,000, but was then whittled down to 200,000. Now, apparently, it will be 1.5 million!
Overall confusion. There are several examples of cross purposes in this bill, which will lend general confusion to both supporters and opponents of the bill. One example I can think of is that there are measures that require security triggers first while at the same time using time passing to dictate when Z-visas are given out (without regard to triggers).
As you can see, only a few hours have passed, and there are already major signs of back-tracking on the amendments that Reid promised. In addition, there's still the fact that if the bill passes out of the Senate, the committee to reconcile the bill with the House has already promised to remove any offending amendments.
It's getting uglier by the hour. As promised.
There's my two cents.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Quick Hits
Hoo-boy, where to even start. Today's festivities have certainly opened a can of...well, you know. I can't really pick a single topic for tonight's update, so I'll just hit some short, quick thoughts. Hopefully they'll all make sense in the context of the day.
Thought #1: It's far from over. The Republicans in the House overwhelmingly passed a resolution (114-23) condemning the Senate's actions. This shamnesty bill will be a fight all the way to the President's desk.
Thought #2: Hypocrisy run amuck. "The Senate conducts most of its business by cooperation and consent. The minority provides that consent with the expectation that the courtesies it extends to the majority will be met with respect for minority rights. And no Senate right is more fundamental than the right to debate." - Senator Harry Reid, March 15, 2005, in a letter to then Majority Leader Bill Frist. [Based on what Reid did today, the rights of the minority to hold debate apparently only apply when the minority is the Democrats.]
Thought #3: Process violations. Stanley Kurtz (NRO) writes that despite our political differences -- which can sometimes get vicious -- there's always the feeling of government following public opinion. In this bill, however, the situation is completely opposite - there isn't anyone who likes this bill or wants it to pass...except the Senate and the White House. This is reflected in the repeated process violations and secret meetings by the 'deal-makers' to get this thing thrown into law despite the literally overwhelming opposition by almost everyone else in America. There were no committee hearings. Debate was cut off before it truly began. It stinks. It stunk from the very shadows of its beginning, and it stinks even worse today as it oozes its slimy way through the Senate.
Thought #4: More government incompetence. The Houston Chronicle reports that a small portion of the border fence that has been built is actually on Mexican soil, and has to be removed. This is the same government that is promising to spend $4.4 billion to construct a 'high-tech' fence that will 'secure our borders'. Yeah, right.
Thought #5: Reid now controls the entire Senate. Yep, he did something that has never before been done in the history of the US Senate - he has used procedural trickery to render the other 99 Senators completely irrelevant. As Sen. Jeff Sessions puts it, "Senator Reid has been trying to portray this immigration nightmare as solely the responsibility of President Bush, but today we saw just how bad Reid wants it. He used his power as Majority Leader to manipulate and abuse the rules of the Senate to ram this bill down our throats. He has set up a process that guarantees votes on a few amendments while blocking all others. This has never been done before, and it’s the most heavy-handed and rigged thing I have ever seen. This bill may have Ted Kennedy’s name on it but it belongs to Harry Reid now." Senator Jim DeMint continues with an extremely important point: "Republicans need to take a step back and realize what happened today. Senator Reid turned the Senate into the House and fundamentally undermined minority rights," said Senator DeMint. "I was always told the Senate was the saucer that cooled the pot, but Senator Reid is forcing us to drink straight from the spout. Republicans better wake up soon or they can expect Senator Reid to use this tactic in the future to raise taxes, increase spending, and weaken our national security." Why do we have a system of checks and balances? To prevent exactly this sort of thing from happening. Reid has way overstepped his bounds in the ultimate show of gall and disregard for his peers and the American people.
Thought #6: Just wait until you see the amendments! Remember how people have been predicting that once the first cloture vote was passed, the 'deal-makers' would get exactly what they wanted? They were able to pull just enough support from fence-sitters to gain their cloture vote based on the promises of some amendments that would make the opposition happy, but let's wait and see what Reid selects as his amendments of choice...
I'll post some commentary on those amendments as soon as I start seeing some information come out on them. For now, just keep up the pressure on your Senators to vote NO to the next cloture vote. Don't let them away with playing both sides of the issue.
There's my two cents.
Thought #1: It's far from over. The Republicans in the House overwhelmingly passed a resolution (114-23) condemning the Senate's actions. This shamnesty bill will be a fight all the way to the President's desk.
Thought #2: Hypocrisy run amuck. "The Senate conducts most of its business by cooperation and consent. The minority provides that consent with the expectation that the courtesies it extends to the majority will be met with respect for minority rights. And no Senate right is more fundamental than the right to debate." - Senator Harry Reid, March 15, 2005, in a letter to then Majority Leader Bill Frist. [Based on what Reid did today, the rights of the minority to hold debate apparently only apply when the minority is the Democrats.]
Thought #3: Process violations. Stanley Kurtz (NRO) writes that despite our political differences -- which can sometimes get vicious -- there's always the feeling of government following public opinion. In this bill, however, the situation is completely opposite - there isn't anyone who likes this bill or wants it to pass...except the Senate and the White House. This is reflected in the repeated process violations and secret meetings by the 'deal-makers' to get this thing thrown into law despite the literally overwhelming opposition by almost everyone else in America. There were no committee hearings. Debate was cut off before it truly began. It stinks. It stunk from the very shadows of its beginning, and it stinks even worse today as it oozes its slimy way through the Senate.
Thought #4: More government incompetence. The Houston Chronicle reports that a small portion of the border fence that has been built is actually on Mexican soil, and has to be removed. This is the same government that is promising to spend $4.4 billion to construct a 'high-tech' fence that will 'secure our borders'. Yeah, right.
Thought #5: Reid now controls the entire Senate. Yep, he did something that has never before been done in the history of the US Senate - he has used procedural trickery to render the other 99 Senators completely irrelevant. As Sen. Jeff Sessions puts it, "Senator Reid has been trying to portray this immigration nightmare as solely the responsibility of President Bush, but today we saw just how bad Reid wants it. He used his power as Majority Leader to manipulate and abuse the rules of the Senate to ram this bill down our throats. He has set up a process that guarantees votes on a few amendments while blocking all others. This has never been done before, and it’s the most heavy-handed and rigged thing I have ever seen. This bill may have Ted Kennedy’s name on it but it belongs to Harry Reid now." Senator Jim DeMint continues with an extremely important point: "Republicans need to take a step back and realize what happened today. Senator Reid turned the Senate into the House and fundamentally undermined minority rights," said Senator DeMint. "I was always told the Senate was the saucer that cooled the pot, but Senator Reid is forcing us to drink straight from the spout. Republicans better wake up soon or they can expect Senator Reid to use this tactic in the future to raise taxes, increase spending, and weaken our national security." Why do we have a system of checks and balances? To prevent exactly this sort of thing from happening. Reid has way overstepped his bounds in the ultimate show of gall and disregard for his peers and the American people.
Thought #6: Just wait until you see the amendments! Remember how people have been predicting that once the first cloture vote was passed, the 'deal-makers' would get exactly what they wanted? They were able to pull just enough support from fence-sitters to gain their cloture vote based on the promises of some amendments that would make the opposition happy, but let's wait and see what Reid selects as his amendments of choice...
I'll post some commentary on those amendments as soon as I start seeing some information come out on them. For now, just keep up the pressure on your Senators to vote NO to the next cloture vote. Don't let them away with playing both sides of the issue.
There's my two cents.
How the 'Clay Pigeon' Will Happen
PajamasMedia.com has a detailed article about exactly how Reid is going to ram this amnesty bill through the Senate. We've touched on this a bit in previous blogs, but this goes into detail on exactly how this unprecedented move will work. The main source is Elizabeth B. Letchworth, a former secretary of the Senate, and an expert on Senate rules.
Here's the summary:
"This Tuesday in the U.S. Senate @ approx. 11:45 AM [later amended to this week -RM] the Senate will conduct a roll call vote on whether the Senate should begin to debate the newly drafted 388 page immigration bill. This bill was introduced on June 18th, 2007 by Sen. Kennedy. If 60 votes are obtained on Tuesday, the bill will be pending in the Senate. [This is what happened earlier today...] Sen. Reid will then immediately take the floor and proceed in a completely unprecedented manner which will deny all Senators except for himself the right to offer amdts. to the bill. (Below is a description of how exactly this will be done.) A cloture motion will then be offered by Sen. Reid. That cloture vote will occur on Thursday. If 60 votes are garnered on Thursday, June 28th for cloture on S. 1639, then after the 30 hours have been used or yielded back, votes will occur automatically, in back-to-back sequence, on the Reid amdts. These roll call vote will conclude with a vote on final passage of S. 1639, the Kennedy Immigration bill."
So, Harry Reid is going to single-handedly fill out the slate of amendments that will be attached to this bill and force a vote without any further debate, just like we were warned would happen.
Letchworth points out some futher irregularities
"Facts surrounding the bill:
S. 1639 was introduced in the Senate on June 18, 2007
S. 1639 did not get referred to the appropriate Senate committee which is regular order
S. 1639 did not receive any hearings in committee and receive the benefit of experts in the field of immigration testifying as to their knowledge of our present immigration system and the new immigration system contained in S. 1639
S. 1639 did not receive a markup in committee where Senators, who sit on that committee, could listen to the testimony by immigration experts, and could have had the opportunity to make changes to the text of S. 1639 by offering amdts."
There's a lot more detail about the procedures Reid will use there, but this is the meat of what's happening.
We'll just have to watch and see if Reid pulls this off. The only thing that can stop it is relentless public pressure on the waffling Senators (Brownback, Bond, Burr, Coleman, Ensign, Gregg, McConnell, Webb) to vote NO on Thursday's cloture vote.
There's my two cents.
Here's the summary:
"This Tuesday in the U.S. Senate @ approx. 11:45 AM [later amended to this week -RM] the Senate will conduct a roll call vote on whether the Senate should begin to debate the newly drafted 388 page immigration bill. This bill was introduced on June 18th, 2007 by Sen. Kennedy. If 60 votes are obtained on Tuesday, the bill will be pending in the Senate. [This is what happened earlier today...] Sen. Reid will then immediately take the floor and proceed in a completely unprecedented manner which will deny all Senators except for himself the right to offer amdts. to the bill. (Below is a description of how exactly this will be done.) A cloture motion will then be offered by Sen. Reid. That cloture vote will occur on Thursday. If 60 votes are garnered on Thursday, June 28th for cloture on S. 1639, then after the 30 hours have been used or yielded back, votes will occur automatically, in back-to-back sequence, on the Reid amdts. These roll call vote will conclude with a vote on final passage of S. 1639, the Kennedy Immigration bill."
So, Harry Reid is going to single-handedly fill out the slate of amendments that will be attached to this bill and force a vote without any further debate, just like we were warned would happen.
Letchworth points out some futher irregularities
"Facts surrounding the bill:
S. 1639 was introduced in the Senate on June 18, 2007
S. 1639 did not get referred to the appropriate Senate committee which is regular order
S. 1639 did not receive any hearings in committee and receive the benefit of experts in the field of immigration testifying as to their knowledge of our present immigration system and the new immigration system contained in S. 1639
S. 1639 did not receive a markup in committee where Senators, who sit on that committee, could listen to the testimony by immigration experts, and could have had the opportunity to make changes to the text of S. 1639 by offering amdts."
There's a lot more detail about the procedures Reid will use there, but this is the meat of what's happening.
We'll just have to watch and see if Reid pulls this off. The only thing that can stop it is relentless public pressure on the waffling Senators (Brownback, Bond, Burr, Coleman, Ensign, Gregg, McConnell, Webb) to vote NO on Thursday's cloture vote.
There's my two cents.
What's Next on Amnesty?
The first cloture vote passed (despite 80% opposition from the American public) 64-35. What does that mean? Simply, it means that the amnesty bill was brought back to life - no more amendments can be offered, and the debate now begins on the ones already on the table. So, what happens next? As I understand it, there will be 30 hours of debate on the amendments included with the bill. After that debate, there will be another cloture vote, this one to end all debate and proceed to a final vote on the bill itself (which would then include the selected amendments).
The interesting part about this will be to see exactly which amendments Reid will select via the 'clay pigeon' maneuver mentioned in a previous blog. Hundreds of amendments have been offered by Republicans and Democrats alike, but only a few will be allowed by Reid. This is a critical point because several Senators who voted in favor of cloture (Kit Bond, for instance) have their own amendments in the mix. It's entirely possible that these Senators may vote against the bill itself if their amendment is not passed/included in the final bill. Basically, Bond (and others) have some kind of deal in the works where they're trying to get something for their vote, and this amendment process will greatly affect that vote.
So, now we have a couple days of debate to watch and learn, then will be the final cloture vote, probably on Thursday, then will be the vote on the shamnesty bill itself.
Now is not the time to stop contacting your Senators! In fact, I'd suggest you step it up. The first cloture vote was a good shot at killing amnesty outright, even thought it failed. The next one is the one that truly counts. Make yourself heard between now and Thursday!
There's my two cents.
The interesting part about this will be to see exactly which amendments Reid will select via the 'clay pigeon' maneuver mentioned in a previous blog. Hundreds of amendments have been offered by Republicans and Democrats alike, but only a few will be allowed by Reid. This is a critical point because several Senators who voted in favor of cloture (Kit Bond, for instance) have their own amendments in the mix. It's entirely possible that these Senators may vote against the bill itself if their amendment is not passed/included in the final bill. Basically, Bond (and others) have some kind of deal in the works where they're trying to get something for their vote, and this amendment process will greatly affect that vote.
So, now we have a couple days of debate to watch and learn, then will be the final cloture vote, probably on Thursday, then will be the vote on the shamnesty bill itself.
Now is not the time to stop contacting your Senators! In fact, I'd suggest you step it up. The first cloture vote was a good shot at killing amnesty outright, even thought it failed. The next one is the one that truly counts. Make yourself heard between now and Thursday!
There's my two cents.
Viva la amnistia!
The cloture vote passed, bringing the shamnesty bill back to life.
Here's how the Missouri/Kansas Senators voted:
- Bond (Rep, MO): YES
- McCaskill (Dem, MO): NO
- Roberts (Rep, KS): NO
- Brownback (Rep, KS): YES
Bond and Brownback are either in favor of amnesty or playing politics against the clear will of 80% of the American people, while McCaskill and Roberts are accurately representing their constituents.
I'll post another blog showing who ends up voting for the final form of the shamnesty bill. That way you'll have a nice, clear summary of who's in favor of amnesty and who wants to play both sides of the fence. Personally, I have greater respect for those who simply favor amnesty - even though I disagree with them, at least they're honest. I have no use for our representatives who want to be able to take both sides of this issue.
Regardless, remember this (feel free to come back to this blog to refresh your memory) when the next election rolls around. Ultimately, the American people will get the last word on these yahoos.
I'll blog about what happens next in this process as soon as I have a concrete understanding of it myself. This was step one -- a great chance to kill amnesty right out of the gate -- in a lengthy process, so keep watching and contacting your Senators. There's much more to come...
There's my two cents.
Here's how the Missouri/Kansas Senators voted:
- Bond (Rep, MO): YES
- McCaskill (Dem, MO): NO
- Roberts (Rep, KS): NO
- Brownback (Rep, KS): YES
Bond and Brownback are either in favor of amnesty or playing politics against the clear will of 80% of the American people, while McCaskill and Roberts are accurately representing their constituents.
I'll post another blog showing who ends up voting for the final form of the shamnesty bill. That way you'll have a nice, clear summary of who's in favor of amnesty and who wants to play both sides of the fence. Personally, I have greater respect for those who simply favor amnesty - even though I disagree with them, at least they're honest. I have no use for our representatives who want to be able to take both sides of this issue.
Regardless, remember this (feel free to come back to this blog to refresh your memory) when the next election rolls around. Ultimately, the American people will get the last word on these yahoos.
I'll blog about what happens next in this process as soon as I have a concrete understanding of it myself. This was step one -- a great chance to kill amnesty right out of the gate -- in a lengthy process, so keep watching and contacting your Senators. There's much more to come...
There's my two cents.
Shamnesty Running Commentary
FYI...the shamnesty debate is going right now, with the first cloture vote schedule soon.
If you're like me and stuck in front of a computer all day long, you can keep track of an almost-live running commentary of what's going on with the shamnesty debate at Michelle Malkin's website.
If you're like me and stuck in front of a computer all day long, you can keep track of an almost-live running commentary of what's going on with the shamnesty debate at Michelle Malkin's website.
Monday, June 25, 2007
It's Do or Die Time, People!
The first vote for cloture on the Shamnesty Bill (Part 2) is likely going to happen tomorrow, Tuesday the 26th.
Here's the situation...according to NumbersUSA, it comes down to a handful of Senators, one of whom is Kit Bond from Missouri. To this point, Bond maintains that he will be voting YES on cloture but NO on the bill itself.
That means he's playing both sides of the issue.
He will vote YES on cloture to play nice with the deal-makers and the White House, ending debate for a final vote on the bill. But, by voting NO on the bill, he can still say he opposed amnesty.
The problem is, the final vote on the bill will only require 51 votes to pass (which they've more than likely got), but the cloture vote requires 60 (which is a toss-up at this point). If the cloture vote doesn't pass, the bill is dead. If the cloture vote passes, the bill will more than likely pass, and we have amnesty.
As the Editors of National Review Online say, "Any senator who votes to bring this legislation back to the Senate floor tomorrow is supporting it, and any contrary vote he casts later will be a scam designed to fool gullible voters."
So, if you're against, this bill, ACT NOW! Here's how you can contact Bond's office:
Call: (202) 224-5721 OR 800-417-7666
Send a fax: http://www.numbersusa.com/actionbuffet (registration is free; you just click which fax you want sent, and NumbersUSA does the rest)
E-mail: http://bond.senate.gov/contact/contactme.cfm
Feel free to do all three, and do them multiple times a day until this cloture vote happens.
Contact Bond's office and tell them that you know a vote in favor of cloture is a vote in favor of the bill. His people may give you a line about wanting to see the final draft of the bill before making his decision, but that's irrelevant - given the overall structure of the bill and the positioning of the deal-makers, they will get what they want (amnesty) regardless of the amendments that may or may not be passed. Bond's been around the block and knows how these things work - he's playing politics with America's future (and your wallet), and he knows it.
There's my two cents.
***UPDATE:
National Review Online posts a list of seven Senators this morning who are considering voting YES on cloture but NO on the bill. Here they are:
Kit Bond, Sam Brownback, Richard Burr, Thad Cochran, Norm Coleman, John Ensign, and Jim Webb
These are the people to target with your calls, e-mails, and faxes today. Go check out the NRO article for details on the stance of each Senator. If they say they're against amnesty, there's no reason to vote YES on cloture - call them on their political bluff.
Here's the situation...according to NumbersUSA, it comes down to a handful of Senators, one of whom is Kit Bond from Missouri. To this point, Bond maintains that he will be voting YES on cloture but NO on the bill itself.
That means he's playing both sides of the issue.
He will vote YES on cloture to play nice with the deal-makers and the White House, ending debate for a final vote on the bill. But, by voting NO on the bill, he can still say he opposed amnesty.
The problem is, the final vote on the bill will only require 51 votes to pass (which they've more than likely got), but the cloture vote requires 60 (which is a toss-up at this point). If the cloture vote doesn't pass, the bill is dead. If the cloture vote passes, the bill will more than likely pass, and we have amnesty.
As the Editors of National Review Online say, "Any senator who votes to bring this legislation back to the Senate floor tomorrow is supporting it, and any contrary vote he casts later will be a scam designed to fool gullible voters."
So, if you're against, this bill, ACT NOW! Here's how you can contact Bond's office:
Call: (202) 224-5721 OR 800-417-7666
Send a fax: http://www.numbersusa.com/actionbuffet (registration is free; you just click which fax you want sent, and NumbersUSA does the rest)
E-mail: http://bond.senate.gov/contact/contactme.cfm
Feel free to do all three, and do them multiple times a day until this cloture vote happens.
Contact Bond's office and tell them that you know a vote in favor of cloture is a vote in favor of the bill. His people may give you a line about wanting to see the final draft of the bill before making his decision, but that's irrelevant - given the overall structure of the bill and the positioning of the deal-makers, they will get what they want (amnesty) regardless of the amendments that may or may not be passed. Bond's been around the block and knows how these things work - he's playing politics with America's future (and your wallet), and he knows it.
There's my two cents.
***UPDATE:
National Review Online posts a list of seven Senators this morning who are considering voting YES on cloture but NO on the bill. Here they are:
Kit Bond, Sam Brownback, Richard Burr, Thad Cochran, Norm Coleman, John Ensign, and Jim Webb
These are the people to target with your calls, e-mails, and faxes today. Go check out the NRO article for details on the stance of each Senator. If they say they're against amnesty, there's no reason to vote YES on cloture - call them on their political bluff.
Dirty Tricks
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will use a cherry-picking amendment trick to cut off debate on the Shamnesty Bill (Part 2). Michelle Malkin has posted a copy of a letter sent to Reid by five Senators (Cornyn, Dole, DeMint, Vitter, and Sessions) asking him not to use the tactic, saying it would be the first time in the history of the Senate to use the measure (called a "clay pigeon") to silence amendments rather than facilitate their debate.
In effect, it would allow Reid to select only the amendments he wants to be included on this bill.
Reid's response is to pass the buck - he maintains the White House and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have asked him to use it. Nice.
The problem here is that several of the fence-sitter Senators have adopted a wait-and-see attitude about the cloture vote in regard to their own amendments. If their amendments were to be passed, they'd vote in favor of cloture and the bill; if their amendments were not passed, they'd vote no. If Reid uses this measure, none of these Senators will know whether or not their amendments would be included before the cloture vote took place.
While this maneuver is pretty low-life, the silver lining is that without knowing the status of their own amendments, some of the fence-sitters could be persuaded (with continued lobbying from their constituents) to simply vote no on cloture and be done with it.
This is where you come in! Get in touch with your Senators and tell them to vote no on cloture!
There's my two cents.
In effect, it would allow Reid to select only the amendments he wants to be included on this bill.
Reid's response is to pass the buck - he maintains the White House and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have asked him to use it. Nice.
The problem here is that several of the fence-sitter Senators have adopted a wait-and-see attitude about the cloture vote in regard to their own amendments. If their amendments were to be passed, they'd vote in favor of cloture and the bill; if their amendments were not passed, they'd vote no. If Reid uses this measure, none of these Senators will know whether or not their amendments would be included before the cloture vote took place.
While this maneuver is pretty low-life, the silver lining is that without knowing the status of their own amendments, some of the fence-sitters could be persuaded (with continued lobbying from their constituents) to simply vote no on cloture and be done with it.
This is where you come in! Get in touch with your Senators and tell them to vote no on cloture!
There's my two cents.
Support for Shamnesty Falls Even Lower
According to a new Rasmussen Reports poll published today, only 22% of Americans now support the current bill in the Senate. Again, the opposition is across the board: "Among the public, there is a bi-partisan lack of enthusiasm for the Senate bill. It is supported by 22% of Republicans, 23% of Democrats, and 22% of those not affiliated with either major party. It is opposed by 52% of Republicans, 50% of Democrats, and 48% of unaffiliateds. From an ideological perspective, the bill is opposed by 59% of conservatives, 54% of liberals, and 45% of political moderates."
Perhaps even more indicative is that only 32% believe it would be better to pass the current bill than nothing at all, and that 71% of Americans believe that if this one passes another bill would be necessary to actually focus on border security and a reduction of illegal immigrations.
Funny, that's what the supporters of this bill are saying is supposed to be done with this bill!
So, what we have here is that the American people (in large numbers and from all political affiliations) don't believe this current bill will actually do what it's supposed to do, and don't want to see it passed.
Naturally, the Senate is going to try anyway. Maybe you should contact your Senators and clue them in...
There's my two cents.
Perhaps even more indicative is that only 32% believe it would be better to pass the current bill than nothing at all, and that 71% of Americans believe that if this one passes another bill would be necessary to actually focus on border security and a reduction of illegal immigrations.
Funny, that's what the supporters of this bill are saying is supposed to be done with this bill!
So, what we have here is that the American people (in large numbers and from all political affiliations) don't believe this current bill will actually do what it's supposed to do, and don't want to see it passed.
Naturally, the Senate is going to try anyway. Maybe you should contact your Senators and clue them in...
There's my two cents.
More Proof of Bias in the Mainstream Media
The mainstream media has a definite liberal bias. I don't think that statement is a shocker to anyone anymore, but sometimes blatant examples can still raise eyebrows as to the magnitude of a problem. I blogged about this a couple weeks ago and pointed out a handful of examples of the difference in coverage on stories in the media, but this article on MSNBC.com really hits the nail on the head. According to a survey of 144 journalists who donated political money between 2004 and 2008, the donations went to 'Democrats and liberal causes' 9 out of 10 times. That's right, 90% went liberal.
Michelle Malkin comments on this in the New York Post, pointing out that for years the media has trumpeted their 'unbending commitment to objectivity' and how they 'cannot signal how [they] feel about a cause, even a justified and just cause, through some sort of outward symbol' -- like an American lapel pin -- but that their words are obviously hollow since they have no problems with supporting left-wing causes and candidates. Even after this bias has been proven, what is the response?
Generally speaking: Eh, whatever.
Just more proof, people, of where their loyalties lie. Be careful who you trust to pass along information and the 'truth'.
There's my two cents.
Michelle Malkin comments on this in the New York Post, pointing out that for years the media has trumpeted their 'unbending commitment to objectivity' and how they 'cannot signal how [they] feel about a cause, even a justified and just cause, through some sort of outward symbol' -- like an American lapel pin -- but that their words are obviously hollow since they have no problems with supporting left-wing causes and candidates. Even after this bias has been proven, what is the response?
Generally speaking: Eh, whatever.
Just more proof, people, of where their loyalties lie. Be careful who you trust to pass along information and the 'truth'.
There's my two cents.
Pointing Out A Couple New Shamnesty Amendments
In an article by the Heritage Foundation, James Carafino summarizes a couple of new amendments to the Shamnesty Bill (Part 2). In 2005, the REAL ID Act was passed with bipartisan support, which implemented one of the 9/11 Commission's key recommendations: "It requires national standards for driver’s licenses and requires that any identity card used for a federal purpose—such as passing through a Transportation Security Administration security checkpoint before boarding a plane—be issued only to individuals who are lawfully present in the United States." This basically provides better protection against identity theft, fraud, and illegal document traffic. The Shamnesty Bill (Part 2) even mentions itself how critical these REAL ID requirements are to immigration reform, but Senators Max Baucus (Dem, MT) and Jon Tester (Dem, MT) introduced an amendment that would essentially dismantle the program.
In another nonsensical move, Senators Charles Grassley (Rep, IA), Max Baucus (Dem, MT), and Barack Obama (Dem, IL) are proposing an amendment that would prohibit the sharing of information between the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security, as well as eliminate the requirement for employers to contact the SSA when they find a "no-match" on a background check.
I have no idea how either of these amendments makes sense on any level to anyone...except to people who are trying to grant amnesty.
But, these are the things that could be signed into law if this bill moves forward. Keep up the pressure on your Senators to kill this bill! I've read that a cloture vote could be coming as early as tomorrow, so call/e-mail right away!
There's my two cents.
In another nonsensical move, Senators Charles Grassley (Rep, IA), Max Baucus (Dem, MT), and Barack Obama (Dem, IL) are proposing an amendment that would prohibit the sharing of information between the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security, as well as eliminate the requirement for employers to contact the SSA when they find a "no-match" on a background check.
I have no idea how either of these amendments makes sense on any level to anyone...except to people who are trying to grant amnesty.
But, these are the things that could be signed into law if this bill moves forward. Keep up the pressure on your Senators to kill this bill! I've read that a cloture vote could be coming as early as tomorrow, so call/e-mail right away!
There's my two cents.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Buckle Your Seatbelts, This Could Get Bumpy!
I've been trying to avoid commenting on the 2008 Presidential elections yet, and have been successful so far. I think it's way too early to be paying much attention to it, and there is so much that can (and will) happen between now and then that it could be a totally different field of candidates by the time we actually get to the primaries. That being said, I can't let this one go by.
Hillary Clinton is generally considered the front-runner for the Democrat nomination in 2008, and is currently a Senator from New York. Michelle Malkin posts about a story today that could be incredibly damaging to Clinton's image, Presidential campaign, and even her current Senate tenure.
It's a 5-minute video showing a conference call between Clinton, Peter Paul (a Hollywood business mogul), and a couple others planning a fundraiser back in 2000. WorldNetDaily has an article on this, and they maintain that this direct participation by Hillary means that Paul's contributions from this event would legally be considered direct donations -- or "hard money" -- which is limited to $2,000 per person. The fundraiser brought $800,000 into the campaign. As WND points out, "[k]nowingly accepting or soliciting $25,000 or more in a calendar year is a felony carrying a prison sentence of up to five years."
My initial thought is that she's in deep trouble - this video was entered as evidence into a California appeals court for a case against Peter Paul, and is as close to a smoking gun as it's possible to get. But, we're talking about the Clintons, and they've proven themselves to be adept at getting away with numerous 'alleged' activities, largely because of the willingness of the liberal media to cover for them.
Speaking of which, I'd be shocked if this story got much more than a passing reference in the mainstream media (see previous paragraph), so I wanted to pass it along to you in detail.
Regardless, it will be very interesting to see what happens with this.
There's my two cents.
Hillary Clinton is generally considered the front-runner for the Democrat nomination in 2008, and is currently a Senator from New York. Michelle Malkin posts about a story today that could be incredibly damaging to Clinton's image, Presidential campaign, and even her current Senate tenure.
It's a 5-minute video showing a conference call between Clinton, Peter Paul (a Hollywood business mogul), and a couple others planning a fundraiser back in 2000. WorldNetDaily has an article on this, and they maintain that this direct participation by Hillary means that Paul's contributions from this event would legally be considered direct donations -- or "hard money" -- which is limited to $2,000 per person. The fundraiser brought $800,000 into the campaign. As WND points out, "[k]nowingly accepting or soliciting $25,000 or more in a calendar year is a felony carrying a prison sentence of up to five years."
My initial thought is that she's in deep trouble - this video was entered as evidence into a California appeals court for a case against Peter Paul, and is as close to a smoking gun as it's possible to get. But, we're talking about the Clintons, and they've proven themselves to be adept at getting away with numerous 'alleged' activities, largely because of the willingness of the liberal media to cover for them.
Speaking of which, I'd be shocked if this story got much more than a passing reference in the mainstream media (see previous paragraph), so I wanted to pass it along to you in detail.
Regardless, it will be very interesting to see what happens with this.
There's my two cents.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Illegal to Preach on Homosexuality?
The American Family Association reports that there are bills in Congress (House bill H.R. 1592 and Senate bill S. 1105) that would would make negative statements concerning homosexuality, such as calling the practice of homosexuality a sin from the pulpit, a 'hate crime' punishable by law.
This is a very tricky subject to address since it triggers very strong emotions on both sides. Realizing there is no point in starting another debate about homosexuality since you've probably already made up your mind about it, I'm going to side-step the theological issues entirely and simply focus on the legal aspects of these bills.
So, what does this legislation mean? It means that it would be a crime for anyone to say anything bad about homosexuality (including pastors preaching from the pulpit, Christians discussing homosexuality in a Sunday school class, etc.).
The Alliance Defense Fund has prepared a summary of the Senate bill that really breaks it down. Here are some of the main points:
- it's unnecessary - there is no evidence that "hate crimes" are a problem that aren't being handled by normal law enforcement
- it's patently unconstitutional - it would criminalize thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and speech
- the crucial phase "bodily injury" is left undefined - this authorizes prosecution for any discomfort, even hurt feelings
- it would give special victim status to some people and make sexual orientation a matter of national policy, giving some people more federal protections than others
- the act would establish a certain viewpoint on "sexual orientation", a term on which there is no true consensus (according to legal precedent, this amorphous concept isn't legally enforceable or recognizable)
- it is unconstitutionally vague, allowing for abuse in legal proceedings
- it is aimed at punishing motive for injuring another person, which would allow Bibles, Christian magazines, websites, etc. to be used as "evidence" to prosecute someone's animus toward sexual orientation
- it contains no provision or exclusion for religious speech
- it inserts federal government into what has traditionally been a state realm: local law enforcement
- many of its provisions are blatantly unconstitutional
Regardless of your theological position on homosexuality, you cannot deny two legal points:
1. this is a blatant muzzling of free speech and thought
2. it creates government-endorsed discrimination
It is simply unacceptable to allow any group of people to become an elevated class for any reason at all. That is a dangerously slippery slope from which there may be no return - once you allow certain groups of people to have special privileges, it's not fair to prevent any other group of people from having the same privileges.
My question: where does it stop?
Let's follow a logical progression. If it's a crime to speak against homosexuality, then it's only fair to make it a crime to speak against fat people. If that's a crime, it had sure better be a crime to speak against skinny people. If physical size can determine extra protections, then people with big noses should be protected, right? What about people with freckles, birth defects, or scars? Those are some pretty definitive physical characteristics, and every now and then someone might make fun of them, so it's only fair to protect them, too. If physical characteristics can be used as a measuring stick, it's only fair to use mental characteristics, so how about giving stupid people federal protections - they need the help, right? How about people who are lazy? People who like the color red?
See how ridiculous this gets? Once you open this door, you can't logically keep anyone out, and pretty soon everyone is a member of some group that can prosecute any other group for literally anything. Then comes the question: who can possibly enforce these things? How can you prove whether a dirty look was based on 'hate' or an upset stomach?
On the other hand, if you establish a single group of people that have special protections, you've just established government-endorsed discrimination. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the government supposed to prevent discrimination?
All theological issues aside, this legislation is horrendous. The American Family Association has a petition (the goal is to get 1 million signatures) that you can sign - follow the link above. After signing that, contact your Senators and Representatives and tell them you strongly oppose these bills.
There's my two cents.
***UPDATE: After looking into this a bit more, I found out that the House bill was actually passed in early May. At this time, I believe the Senate bill is in committee, so it has yet to come up for a vote. If you want to weigh in on the issue, call your Senators, not your Representatives. Sorry about the confusion!
This is a very tricky subject to address since it triggers very strong emotions on both sides. Realizing there is no point in starting another debate about homosexuality since you've probably already made up your mind about it, I'm going to side-step the theological issues entirely and simply focus on the legal aspects of these bills.
So, what does this legislation mean? It means that it would be a crime for anyone to say anything bad about homosexuality (including pastors preaching from the pulpit, Christians discussing homosexuality in a Sunday school class, etc.).
The Alliance Defense Fund has prepared a summary of the Senate bill that really breaks it down. Here are some of the main points:
- it's unnecessary - there is no evidence that "hate crimes" are a problem that aren't being handled by normal law enforcement
- it's patently unconstitutional - it would criminalize thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and speech
- the crucial phase "bodily injury" is left undefined - this authorizes prosecution for any discomfort, even hurt feelings
- it would give special victim status to some people and make sexual orientation a matter of national policy, giving some people more federal protections than others
- the act would establish a certain viewpoint on "sexual orientation", a term on which there is no true consensus (according to legal precedent, this amorphous concept isn't legally enforceable or recognizable)
- it is unconstitutionally vague, allowing for abuse in legal proceedings
- it is aimed at punishing motive for injuring another person, which would allow Bibles, Christian magazines, websites, etc. to be used as "evidence" to prosecute someone's animus toward sexual orientation
- it contains no provision or exclusion for religious speech
- it inserts federal government into what has traditionally been a state realm: local law enforcement
- many of its provisions are blatantly unconstitutional
Regardless of your theological position on homosexuality, you cannot deny two legal points:
1. this is a blatant muzzling of free speech and thought
2. it creates government-endorsed discrimination
It is simply unacceptable to allow any group of people to become an elevated class for any reason at all. That is a dangerously slippery slope from which there may be no return - once you allow certain groups of people to have special privileges, it's not fair to prevent any other group of people from having the same privileges.
My question: where does it stop?
Let's follow a logical progression. If it's a crime to speak against homosexuality, then it's only fair to make it a crime to speak against fat people. If that's a crime, it had sure better be a crime to speak against skinny people. If physical size can determine extra protections, then people with big noses should be protected, right? What about people with freckles, birth defects, or scars? Those are some pretty definitive physical characteristics, and every now and then someone might make fun of them, so it's only fair to protect them, too. If physical characteristics can be used as a measuring stick, it's only fair to use mental characteristics, so how about giving stupid people federal protections - they need the help, right? How about people who are lazy? People who like the color red?
See how ridiculous this gets? Once you open this door, you can't logically keep anyone out, and pretty soon everyone is a member of some group that can prosecute any other group for literally anything. Then comes the question: who can possibly enforce these things? How can you prove whether a dirty look was based on 'hate' or an upset stomach?
On the other hand, if you establish a single group of people that have special protections, you've just established government-endorsed discrimination. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the government supposed to prevent discrimination?
All theological issues aside, this legislation is horrendous. The American Family Association has a petition (the goal is to get 1 million signatures) that you can sign - follow the link above. After signing that, contact your Senators and Representatives and tell them you strongly oppose these bills.
There's my two cents.
***UPDATE: After looking into this a bit more, I found out that the House bill was actually passed in early May. At this time, I believe the Senate bill is in committee, so it has yet to come up for a vote. If you want to weigh in on the issue, call your Senators, not your Representatives. Sorry about the confusion!
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Shamnesty Video Summary by Lou Dobbs
I just saw this link for a video of CNN's Lou Dobbs summarizing some of the worst provisions of this bill. If you want it in a quick 3 1/2 minute video blurb, check it out here.
Can there seriously be any doubt about this thing? Actually, there isn't. Our Senators are just not listening to us very well...
There's my two cents.
Can there seriously be any doubt about this thing? Actually, there isn't. Our Senators are just not listening to us very well...
There's my two cents.
As Shamnesty Bill (Part 2) Heats Up, Be Prepared...
A great summary of the information on this revised immigration 'reform' bill can be found at NumbersUSA, including background information, explanations, and amendments under consideration. This is a very good resource to keep an eye on.
Kudos to Missouri's Senator McCaskill, who told CNN's Lou Dobbs today that she will vote against cloture on the Shamnesty Bill (Part 2). Yes! Feel free to call her office to thank her for representing you accurately (yes, even if you're a Republican), even in the face of what I'm assuming is considerable pressure from her own party.
Michelle Malkin reports today on the status of some of the 'waffling' Senators. These people need some more persuasion:
Lamar Alexander (Tennessee)
Robert Bennett (Utah)
Thad Cochran (Mississippi)
Norm Coleman (Minnesota)
Susan Collins (Maine)
Larry Craig (Idaho)
Pete Domenici (New Mexico)
Judd Gregg (New Hampshire)
Orrin Hatch (Utah)
Jon Kyl (Arizona)
Trent Lott (Mississippi)
Mitch McConnell (Kentucky)
Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
Olympia Snowe (Maine)
Ted Stevens (Alaska)
John Warner (Virginia)
Speaking of, here are three other toll-free numbers that I've seen advertised as being useful for contacting the Senate switchboard. I haven't tried any of them yet, but I may give them a whirl tomorrow:
800-862-5530
877-851-6437
866-220-0044
Just a brief recap from a previous blog...the first vote will be a cloture vote, which will end debate on the bill and move it on to the amendments attached to the bill. These amendments were hand-picked by the 'deal-makers', so they're suspect from the start, and may not include some things that are critically important in protecting Americans and the law. Plus, there are rumblings that if cloture is passed, the deal-makers will simply remove any amendments they don't like while the bill is being discussed in committee with the House. That means that it doesn't really matter what amendments are passed with the bill - the deal-makers have final control over what becomes the law. So, the key is this first cloture vote. If it doesn't pass, the bill itself can't be voted on, and it's dead.
So, give 'em the message! The opposition is gaining momentum, but it's not over yet. It sounds like there is a very small chance Reid will call for a cloture vote Friday evening, but it will most likely happen early next week. So, burn up the phones and e-mails, and drive the point home: no cloture and no amnesty!
There's my two cents.
Kudos to Missouri's Senator McCaskill, who told CNN's Lou Dobbs today that she will vote against cloture on the Shamnesty Bill (Part 2). Yes! Feel free to call her office to thank her for representing you accurately (yes, even if you're a Republican), even in the face of what I'm assuming is considerable pressure from her own party.
Michelle Malkin reports today on the status of some of the 'waffling' Senators. These people need some more persuasion:
Lamar Alexander (Tennessee)
Robert Bennett (Utah)
Thad Cochran (Mississippi)
Norm Coleman (Minnesota)
Susan Collins (Maine)
Larry Craig (Idaho)
Pete Domenici (New Mexico)
Judd Gregg (New Hampshire)
Orrin Hatch (Utah)
Jon Kyl (Arizona)
Trent Lott (Mississippi)
Mitch McConnell (Kentucky)
Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
Olympia Snowe (Maine)
Ted Stevens (Alaska)
John Warner (Virginia)
Speaking of, here are three other toll-free numbers that I've seen advertised as being useful for contacting the Senate switchboard. I haven't tried any of them yet, but I may give them a whirl tomorrow:
800-862-5530
877-851-6437
866-220-0044
Just a brief recap from a previous blog...the first vote will be a cloture vote, which will end debate on the bill and move it on to the amendments attached to the bill. These amendments were hand-picked by the 'deal-makers', so they're suspect from the start, and may not include some things that are critically important in protecting Americans and the law. Plus, there are rumblings that if cloture is passed, the deal-makers will simply remove any amendments they don't like while the bill is being discussed in committee with the House. That means that it doesn't really matter what amendments are passed with the bill - the deal-makers have final control over what becomes the law. So, the key is this first cloture vote. If it doesn't pass, the bill itself can't be voted on, and it's dead.
So, give 'em the message! The opposition is gaining momentum, but it's not over yet. It sounds like there is a very small chance Reid will call for a cloture vote Friday evening, but it will most likely happen early next week. So, burn up the phones and e-mails, and drive the point home: no cloture and no amnesty!
There's my two cents.
Illegal Immigration = More Terrorists in the U.S.
Stay sharp: according to US News & World Report, the debate on Shamnesty Bill (Part 2) will resume next week.
In an article for the Heritage Foundation, Kris Kobach writes an article that shows just how dangerous illegal immigration is when it comes to terrorism. As discussed in previous blogs, several of the latest foiled terrorist attempts on US soil have involved terrorists that came here illegally: "[t]he four JFK terrorists include two nationals of Guyana, one of Trinidad, and one former Guyanan who was granted U.S. citizenship. The Fort Dix Islamic terrorists who were arrested in May included five foreign nationals from Yugoslavia and Jordan. A sixth, from Turkey, eventually obtained U.S. citizenship. Of the five aliens, three were illegal aliens who snuck across the southern border years ago near Brownsville, Texas."
Now, let's say this new bill goes through. What would happen?
Kobach points out that the bill requires Z-visas to start being issued 180 days after the legislation is signed into law by the President. Contrary to what supporters say, no 'triggers' have to be met. From that point, terrorists have three options.
Terrorist Option #1: Continue to operate as an illegal alien. Clearly, this is already very easy to do (although if the Secure Borders First Act currently in the House goes through that might change - we can hope!). Even if the terrorist is found by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), they simply pick from option 2 or 3.
Terrorist Option #2: Obtain amnesty by using one's real name. Given the 24-hour period for background checks, there is virtually no chance that even a known terrorist name would be flagged. Even worse, the system is currently stretched so thin that there is an informal 6-minute rule - "adjudicators are pressed to spend no more than six minutes looking at any application." Even in the current system, fraud is rampant - "A 2005 study by Janice Kephart, Counsel to the 9/11 Commission, found that 59 out of 94 foreign-born terrorists (about 2/3) successfully committed immigration fraud to acquire or adjust legal status."
Terrorist Option #3: Invent a clean identity with the US's help. This shamnesty bill requires no proof of identity in the form of a passport from a foreign country. Any terrorist simply needs two pieces of (easily forged) paper showing someone by the same name being in the country prior to January 1st of 2007, and they gain legal status. As Kobach says, "[a] pay stub, a bank receipt, or a remittance receipt would suffice, as does a declaration from one of the terrorist's friends". That last one will be especially tough to come by, don't you think?
Kobach also does the math on just how many terrorists we're talking about: "In fiscal year 2005, the Border Patrol apprehended 3,722 aliens from nations that are designated state sponsors of terrorism or places in which al-Qaeda has operated, and for every one alien whom the Border Patrol apprehended, there were likely three aliens who were not caught. If so, it is probable that more than 10,000 aliens from high-risk, terrorist-associated countries illegally entered the United States in fiscal year 2005 alone. Assuming conservatively that only one in 100 was an actual terrorist, that is still over 100 terrorists who snuck across the border in a single year." How many did it take to pull off 9/11? Nineteen. So, based on those numbers, we've had enough hard-core terrorists enter the US since 2005 to perpetrate almost 15 more acts of terrorism with the same magnitude as 9/11.
What's the correct answer to this problem? SECURE OUR BORDERS FIRST!!!
One of the leading opposers of amnesty, Sen. James Inhofe (Rep, OK), has an online petition you can sign to underscore this point to the Senate. Sign here. Then call your Senators. Yes, call them again...and again...and again, until this shamnesty is dead for real. Yes, it is that important.
If the American people don't stand up against this fraud, it will get rammed through the Senate, and that will be bad news for everyone. Except the terrorists, of course.
There's my two cents.
In an article for the Heritage Foundation, Kris Kobach writes an article that shows just how dangerous illegal immigration is when it comes to terrorism. As discussed in previous blogs, several of the latest foiled terrorist attempts on US soil have involved terrorists that came here illegally: "[t]he four JFK terrorists include two nationals of Guyana, one of Trinidad, and one former Guyanan who was granted U.S. citizenship. The Fort Dix Islamic terrorists who were arrested in May included five foreign nationals from Yugoslavia and Jordan. A sixth, from Turkey, eventually obtained U.S. citizenship. Of the five aliens, three were illegal aliens who snuck across the southern border years ago near Brownsville, Texas."
Now, let's say this new bill goes through. What would happen?
Kobach points out that the bill requires Z-visas to start being issued 180 days after the legislation is signed into law by the President. Contrary to what supporters say, no 'triggers' have to be met. From that point, terrorists have three options.
Terrorist Option #1: Continue to operate as an illegal alien. Clearly, this is already very easy to do (although if the Secure Borders First Act currently in the House goes through that might change - we can hope!). Even if the terrorist is found by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), they simply pick from option 2 or 3.
Terrorist Option #2: Obtain amnesty by using one's real name. Given the 24-hour period for background checks, there is virtually no chance that even a known terrorist name would be flagged. Even worse, the system is currently stretched so thin that there is an informal 6-minute rule - "adjudicators are pressed to spend no more than six minutes looking at any application." Even in the current system, fraud is rampant - "A 2005 study by Janice Kephart, Counsel to the 9/11 Commission, found that 59 out of 94 foreign-born terrorists (about 2/3) successfully committed immigration fraud to acquire or adjust legal status."
Terrorist Option #3: Invent a clean identity with the US's help. This shamnesty bill requires no proof of identity in the form of a passport from a foreign country. Any terrorist simply needs two pieces of (easily forged) paper showing someone by the same name being in the country prior to January 1st of 2007, and they gain legal status. As Kobach says, "[a] pay stub, a bank receipt, or a remittance receipt would suffice, as does a declaration from one of the terrorist's friends". That last one will be especially tough to come by, don't you think?
Kobach also does the math on just how many terrorists we're talking about: "In fiscal year 2005, the Border Patrol apprehended 3,722 aliens from nations that are designated state sponsors of terrorism or places in which al-Qaeda has operated, and for every one alien whom the Border Patrol apprehended, there were likely three aliens who were not caught. If so, it is probable that more than 10,000 aliens from high-risk, terrorist-associated countries illegally entered the United States in fiscal year 2005 alone. Assuming conservatively that only one in 100 was an actual terrorist, that is still over 100 terrorists who snuck across the border in a single year." How many did it take to pull off 9/11? Nineteen. So, based on those numbers, we've had enough hard-core terrorists enter the US since 2005 to perpetrate almost 15 more acts of terrorism with the same magnitude as 9/11.
What's the correct answer to this problem? SECURE OUR BORDERS FIRST!!!
One of the leading opposers of amnesty, Sen. James Inhofe (Rep, OK), has an online petition you can sign to underscore this point to the Senate. Sign here. Then call your Senators. Yes, call them again...and again...and again, until this shamnesty is dead for real. Yes, it is that important.
If the American people don't stand up against this fraud, it will get rammed through the Senate, and that will be bad news for everyone. Except the terrorists, of course.
There's my two cents.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Immigration 'Reform' and Background Checks
FYI...it appears the Shamnesty Bill (Part 2) isn't going to be brought up until the current energy bill is finished. That's good, because it gives the public more time to dig into this new version and figure out what's actually in it. It'll likely be in the next few days, though, so keep in touch.
Speaking of the shamnesty bill, as I've mentioned in previous blogs, one of the more choice provisions of the shamnesty bill is that of background checks for everyone applying for a Z-visa. The bill requires a background check, but also states that an applicant will be granted a Z-visa unless a compelling reason is found to deny them in 24 hours. That's right, we're supposed to buy the fact that our federal government can run a comprehensive background and criminal check on 12-20 million people in less than 24 hours. Fat chance!
To put things into perspective, here are two stories you may or may not have heard about. The first is a story in the Washington Post about how a second run of new dollar coins were minted without the phrases 'In God We Trust', 'E Pluribus Unum', and the year/mint mark on them. Now, how many coins does the goverment mint in a year, and how many changes are actually made from year to year on these things? A lot, and almost none. Plus, did you catch the part about the 'second run'? They even had a chance to correct the problem after the first run, but it didn't happen! This is government efficiency at its finest...
The second story is especially appropriate since it talks about the current massive backlog in the passport system, which includes background checks for each passport issued. The government just implemented a new policy this year that would require passports for travel to/from the US and Canada, Mexico, and other North American locations. The problem is that this new policy completely swamped the system just with legitimate American citizens trying to travel for the sake of leisure! Depending on where you look, the backlog is anywhere from a few hundred thousand to several million strong, but in any case, the delay is now around three months to get a passport.
So, given these examples of government (in)efficiency, I ask you again: do you really think that it's a good idea to dump another 12-20 million background checks onto this already-drowned system? Do you think there's any realistic chance that any of them will do any good in just 24 hours?
This is just another thinly-veiled attempt to sucker the American people into buying an empty promise on this shamnesty bill, and another reason that this shamnesty bill must not pass.
There's my two cents.
Speaking of the shamnesty bill, as I've mentioned in previous blogs, one of the more choice provisions of the shamnesty bill is that of background checks for everyone applying for a Z-visa. The bill requires a background check, but also states that an applicant will be granted a Z-visa unless a compelling reason is found to deny them in 24 hours. That's right, we're supposed to buy the fact that our federal government can run a comprehensive background and criminal check on 12-20 million people in less than 24 hours. Fat chance!
To put things into perspective, here are two stories you may or may not have heard about. The first is a story in the Washington Post about how a second run of new dollar coins were minted without the phrases 'In God We Trust', 'E Pluribus Unum', and the year/mint mark on them. Now, how many coins does the goverment mint in a year, and how many changes are actually made from year to year on these things? A lot, and almost none. Plus, did you catch the part about the 'second run'? They even had a chance to correct the problem after the first run, but it didn't happen! This is government efficiency at its finest...
The second story is especially appropriate since it talks about the current massive backlog in the passport system, which includes background checks for each passport issued. The government just implemented a new policy this year that would require passports for travel to/from the US and Canada, Mexico, and other North American locations. The problem is that this new policy completely swamped the system just with legitimate American citizens trying to travel for the sake of leisure! Depending on where you look, the backlog is anywhere from a few hundred thousand to several million strong, but in any case, the delay is now around three months to get a passport.
So, given these examples of government (in)efficiency, I ask you again: do you really think that it's a good idea to dump another 12-20 million background checks onto this already-drowned system? Do you think there's any realistic chance that any of them will do any good in just 24 hours?
This is just another thinly-veiled attempt to sucker the American people into buying an empty promise on this shamnesty bill, and another reason that this shamnesty bill must not pass.
There's my two cents.
Illegal Immigration = Disease Problem
The Washington Times ran a column back in 2005 pointing out a dangerous trend where illegal immigrants are bringing large numbers of diseases into the US, including some that have been largely eliminated (or at least marginalized) here. Is this a problem we need to worry about, or is it just unnecessary alarmism?
Well, according to this article in the Charlotte Observer today, this is a very real concern. Hundreds of workers at a chicken processing plant in Greenville, South Carolina were exposed to tuberculosis that was likely brought into the country by a foreigner (though the article doesn't clearly say whether it was a legal or illegal foreigner).
In addition, what happens if a disease gets transmitted into a major food supply like this chicken processing plant? We'd have a huge problem on our hands, similar to the spinach recall or pet food recall in the past few months.
We know that illegal aliens are less likely to seek treatment for diseases like TB, which means they can quickly transmit TB and other diseases throughout America, and the more illegals come here the worse the problem gets. For example, in 1993, foreign-born residents accounted for 29% of reported TB cases; in 2005, that number had jumped up to 55%. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the rate of TB cases in the Hispanic population of the US is 8 times higher than the rate in whites.
Do all illegals carry diseases? No, of course not. But, there is a lot of statistical evidence to prove that there is a definite link between illegal aliens and higher disease rates. This is yet another reason to secure our borders first, then systematically begin to deal with those who are already here.
There's my two cents.
Well, according to this article in the Charlotte Observer today, this is a very real concern. Hundreds of workers at a chicken processing plant in Greenville, South Carolina were exposed to tuberculosis that was likely brought into the country by a foreigner (though the article doesn't clearly say whether it was a legal or illegal foreigner).
In addition, what happens if a disease gets transmitted into a major food supply like this chicken processing plant? We'd have a huge problem on our hands, similar to the spinach recall or pet food recall in the past few months.
We know that illegal aliens are less likely to seek treatment for diseases like TB, which means they can quickly transmit TB and other diseases throughout America, and the more illegals come here the worse the problem gets. For example, in 1993, foreign-born residents accounted for 29% of reported TB cases; in 2005, that number had jumped up to 55%. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the rate of TB cases in the Hispanic population of the US is 8 times higher than the rate in whites.
Do all illegals carry diseases? No, of course not. But, there is a lot of statistical evidence to prove that there is a definite link between illegal aliens and higher disease rates. This is yet another reason to secure our borders first, then systematically begin to deal with those who are already here.
There's my two cents.
Illegal Immigration = National Security Problem
Michelle Malkin has posted an ad taken out in Roll Call magazine by the 9/11 Families for a Secure America depicting the three illegals that were part of the "Fort Dix Six". The headline states, 'Under the Bush-Kennedy-McCain bill the Fort Dix Six attackers would have been given amnesty'.
If you don't think that illegal immigration poses a grave national security risk, read this ad and think again! Something needs to be done -- and fast -- but amnesty is precisely the wrong answer! Call your Senators TODAY and weigh in about the current shamnesty bill being debated.
There's my two cents.
If you don't think that illegal immigration poses a grave national security risk, read this ad and think again! Something needs to be done -- and fast -- but amnesty is precisely the wrong answer! Call your Senators TODAY and weigh in about the current shamnesty bill being debated.
There's my two cents.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Progress on Shamnesty!
Yes, yes, yes! I came across two great pieces of news today that show concrete progress on the shamnesty issue (even though they're both from the House rather than the Senate), and they deserve to be trumpeted.
Good News #1: The first is that Rep. Tom Tancredo (Rep., CO) successfully passed a bill that would withhold federal emergency services funding for so-called 'sanctuary' cities that protect illegal immigrants.
I've mentioned this subject in previous blogs, but a quick synopsis is that these 'sanctuary' cities refuse to investigate the legal status of criminals picked up on the streets, and in many cases these criminals are released simply because they are suspected to be illegals (but it's a no-no to actually check it out). Basically, the city government turns a blind eye to illegals, allowing them 'sanctuary'. The end result is that illegals have virtually free reign in these 'sanctuary' cities, and we end up with things like the Fort Dix Six, a group of terrorists who attempted to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey. Three of them were illegals who'd been in the US for at least 10 years, and between the three they'd had charges filed against them 75 times! But, no one bothered to investigate their legal status and have them deported.
So, what does this House bill mean? It means, I believe, that these 'sanctuary' cities will have to choose between the protection of their US citizens via federal emergency money or the protection of their illegal populations via their 'sanctuary' status. Can't have both anymore. It should be very illuminating to see what they decide...
The good news is that there were 50 Democrats voting in favor of this bill, a good sign that this issue crosses the normal political aisle and reflects the will of the clear majority of the American people. And, it may be an indicator that if the Shamnesty Bill (Part 2) does pass the Senate, it may find more opposition in the House than previously thought. I'd much rather see it killed in the Senate again, but it's nice to have a backup plan.
Good News #2: The second piece of good news was posted by Michelle Malkin: Republicans in the House also introduced legislation today that took aim squarely at securing our borders before entertaining any other action at all. It rightly blasted the past 20 years of leadership, pointing out the obvious lack of enforcement. The LA Times goes into some more detail: the Secure Borders First Act would effectively secure our borders first, bar illegal immigrants from obtaining legal status, require employers to check the legal status of all workers hired, and establish English as the nation's official language. It stresses operational control over the border and rejects amnesty in favor of enforcing existing laws. It would require the deployment of 18,000 more border patrol agents by the end of 2008, as well as full implementation of the US-VISIT program (to track who comes and goes), which was authorized in the mid-90's but never implemented. It also has some common sense provisions that would improve communication between the Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration, and the Treasury Department, allowing for better identification of illegals. Another provision would prevent temporary agriculture workers from bringing their families or from getting legal status in the US, and it would hold 1/4 of their wages in escrow to be picked up at the border when they return home at the end of their work visa. It would also crack down on illegal gang members.
I don't know about you, but this bill is music to my ears!
Here's the thing that's really interesting to me. The Founding Fathers designed Congress very carefully - the Senate was meant to be the place where legislation got bogged down in debate, resulting only in the passage of bills that really have a lot of support. The House, on the other hand, was given the ability to fire off bill after bill in rapid succession, but House members tend to stay much more in tune with their constituents since they serve only two year terms (rather than the Senate's 6-year term). So, even though the Senate has been slow in coming around to what the American people want, the House has heard it loud and clear (at least these Republicans who introduced this bill). We'll see if it passes a full House vote, but I certainly hope it does. It could be a sign of good things to come.
There's my two cents.
Good News #1: The first is that Rep. Tom Tancredo (Rep., CO) successfully passed a bill that would withhold federal emergency services funding for so-called 'sanctuary' cities that protect illegal immigrants.
I've mentioned this subject in previous blogs, but a quick synopsis is that these 'sanctuary' cities refuse to investigate the legal status of criminals picked up on the streets, and in many cases these criminals are released simply because they are suspected to be illegals (but it's a no-no to actually check it out). Basically, the city government turns a blind eye to illegals, allowing them 'sanctuary'. The end result is that illegals have virtually free reign in these 'sanctuary' cities, and we end up with things like the Fort Dix Six, a group of terrorists who attempted to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey. Three of them were illegals who'd been in the US for at least 10 years, and between the three they'd had charges filed against them 75 times! But, no one bothered to investigate their legal status and have them deported.
So, what does this House bill mean? It means, I believe, that these 'sanctuary' cities will have to choose between the protection of their US citizens via federal emergency money or the protection of their illegal populations via their 'sanctuary' status. Can't have both anymore. It should be very illuminating to see what they decide...
The good news is that there were 50 Democrats voting in favor of this bill, a good sign that this issue crosses the normal political aisle and reflects the will of the clear majority of the American people. And, it may be an indicator that if the Shamnesty Bill (Part 2) does pass the Senate, it may find more opposition in the House than previously thought. I'd much rather see it killed in the Senate again, but it's nice to have a backup plan.
Good News #2: The second piece of good news was posted by Michelle Malkin: Republicans in the House also introduced legislation today that took aim squarely at securing our borders before entertaining any other action at all. It rightly blasted the past 20 years of leadership, pointing out the obvious lack of enforcement. The LA Times goes into some more detail: the Secure Borders First Act would effectively secure our borders first, bar illegal immigrants from obtaining legal status, require employers to check the legal status of all workers hired, and establish English as the nation's official language. It stresses operational control over the border and rejects amnesty in favor of enforcing existing laws. It would require the deployment of 18,000 more border patrol agents by the end of 2008, as well as full implementation of the US-VISIT program (to track who comes and goes), which was authorized in the mid-90's but never implemented. It also has some common sense provisions that would improve communication between the Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration, and the Treasury Department, allowing for better identification of illegals. Another provision would prevent temporary agriculture workers from bringing their families or from getting legal status in the US, and it would hold 1/4 of their wages in escrow to be picked up at the border when they return home at the end of their work visa. It would also crack down on illegal gang members.
I don't know about you, but this bill is music to my ears!
Here's the thing that's really interesting to me. The Founding Fathers designed Congress very carefully - the Senate was meant to be the place where legislation got bogged down in debate, resulting only in the passage of bills that really have a lot of support. The House, on the other hand, was given the ability to fire off bill after bill in rapid succession, but House members tend to stay much more in tune with their constituents since they serve only two year terms (rather than the Senate's 6-year term). So, even though the Senate has been slow in coming around to what the American people want, the House has heard it loud and clear (at least these Republicans who introduced this bill). We'll see if it passes a full House vote, but I certainly hope it does. It could be a sign of good things to come.
There's my two cents.
Be Aware: Shamnesty Bill (Part 2) Begins...
After another secret behind-closed-doors session, the shamnesty deal-makers have provided a new bill that will be introduced into the Senate this week (probably Wednesday). The new bill (S. 1639) appears to be similar to the old bill, with the addition of a few hand-picked amendments. If you want to look at the bill, you can download it here.
I haven't had time to read it for myself yet (it's 418 pages long), but I'll be sure to post information about the bill when I start seeing analysis from the real professionals. Given the nature of this issue, the actions taken on the first attempt, and the fact that it's the same people trying to ram this thing down America's throat, my guess is that it'll be just as bad as the first one. The main problem here is that it sounds like there will be even less debate allowed on this one, so be ready to call your Senators ASAP! I'll do my best to blog concrete info as soon as I see it.
Keep up the pressure! This could be the money round!
There's my two cents.
I haven't had time to read it for myself yet (it's 418 pages long), but I'll be sure to post information about the bill when I start seeing analysis from the real professionals. Given the nature of this issue, the actions taken on the first attempt, and the fact that it's the same people trying to ram this thing down America's throat, my guess is that it'll be just as bad as the first one. The main problem here is that it sounds like there will be even less debate allowed on this one, so be ready to call your Senators ASAP! I'll do my best to blog concrete info as soon as I see it.
Keep up the pressure! This could be the money round!
There's my two cents.
Amendment Fraud on the Shamnesty Bill!
National Review Online posted an article today that warns supporters of the shamnesty bill may try to snooker you with an amendment (reportedly to be introduced by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Rep, TX) that will supposedly remove 'amnesty' from the bill.
Don't buy it.
First of all, the shamnesty bill will grant immediate legal status to essentially all illegals currently in the US. The only ones who need to return to their home country are the ones who want to become citizens. As I've argued before, why would citizenship be needed? Illegals will be able to stay here, get jobs and social services, and no longer fear deportation.
Second, even if illegals returned to their home countries to fill out the paperwork, they don't have to wait for approval before coming back. They can return immediately, and the net effect is that the law-breakers will get into line in front of those who have followed the law and are waiting to legally enter the US.
It's a gimmick to give political cover to Senators who want to defect and support this bill. Don't fall for it!
There's my two cents.
Don't buy it.
First of all, the shamnesty bill will grant immediate legal status to essentially all illegals currently in the US. The only ones who need to return to their home country are the ones who want to become citizens. As I've argued before, why would citizenship be needed? Illegals will be able to stay here, get jobs and social services, and no longer fear deportation.
Second, even if illegals returned to their home countries to fill out the paperwork, they don't have to wait for approval before coming back. They can return immediately, and the net effect is that the law-breakers will get into line in front of those who have followed the law and are waiting to legally enter the US.
It's a gimmick to give political cover to Senators who want to defect and support this bill. Don't fall for it!
There's my two cents.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Recommendation: Epicenter by Joel C. Rosenberg
I've started a new section on my blog - Recommendations. I'm going to put books, movies, and other similar items on here that I come across and think are worth sharing. The first entry is Epicenter by Joel C. Rosenberg.
I just finished reading this book, and I highly recommend it for anyone who has even a passing interest in understanding the events and conflict going on in the Middle East. Rosenberg is a best-selling author of several fiction books (including The Last Jihad), so although this is non-fiction, he knows how to move it along. He's been an advisor to both American and Israeli officials, and has met with many other key power players all over the world, so he has an in-depth first hand knowledge of the subject. He starts with background on his uncanny ability to accurately predict several major events over the past few years (i.e. the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime) through his fiction, and from there transitions into some predictions for the future.
If you want to understand what's going on over there, why it's happening, why it's important to you, and what may happen next, this is the book you need.
I just finished reading this book, and I highly recommend it for anyone who has even a passing interest in understanding the events and conflict going on in the Middle East. Rosenberg is a best-selling author of several fiction books (including The Last Jihad), so although this is non-fiction, he knows how to move it along. He's been an advisor to both American and Israeli officials, and has met with many other key power players all over the world, so he has an in-depth first hand knowledge of the subject. He starts with background on his uncanny ability to accurately predict several major events over the past few years (i.e. the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime) through his fiction, and from there transitions into some predictions for the future.
If you want to understand what's going on over there, why it's happening, why it's important to you, and what may happen next, this is the book you need.
To Clone Or Not To Clone?
Just two weeks ago, the House voted on a bill (H.R. 2560) to authorize human cloning. The Editors of National Review Online write that the bill would have allowed scientists to create human embryos for the express purpose of destroying them to harvest stem cells. Of course, Pelosi and the rest of her colleagues know that, so they wrote the bill in such a way that it appears to ban cloning. They use essentially the same tactic and terminology that was used on Amendment 2 (which passed) in the 2006 Missouri elections: scientists are forbidden to implant a cloned embryo into a womb, thus 'banning' human cloning. But, the actual cloning process itself is completely legal.
As David Christensen writes, this bill would create a human cloning industry which -- through the doctor-patient privacy privilege -- law enforcement couldn't touch. Upon passage of such a bill, would researchers actually attempt to clone human beings? Yes. It's already been done in South Korea, where scientists have paid over 100 women for over 2,000 eggs. A human being has not yet been successfully cloned, but this should be an obvious warning to Americans. Another questionable clause in the bill would forfeit any property used to violate the ban on human cloning to the government. So, if a cloned baby were discovered, would the baby become the property of the US government? These questions are alarming, and the only way to avoid them altogether is to truly ban all attempts at cloning embryos, whether inside or outside of the womb.
The issue of stem cells is, of course, tightly interwoven with that of abortion. Why? It basically comes down to this: embryonic stem cells (i.e. pluripotent cells) have the potential to change into any type of cell found in the body, giving them the most 'potential' for usefulness. But, obviously, they can only come from embryos, which many Americans consider to be an early stage of human development. Therefore, to destroy an embryo is to destroy a human life. One of the resources I pointed out at the last election was this article from the St. Louis Center for Bioethics and Culture which describes the process of embryonic stem cell harvesting - if you don't understand how it works, check this out. I leave it to you to decide for yourself whether or not this process contitutes the destruction of a human life, but make sure you understand what is involved before you make your decision.
Anyway, the situation we have here is that what some believe is the greatest amount of potential for good treatments also requires by far the greatest amount of ethical and moral grappling. The catch is that there has not been a single cure or treatment produced from embryonic stem cell research. That's right, not a single one.
So what do we do? Fortunately, there are perfectly viable alternatives: adult stem cells and cord blood. To date, scientists have created over 70 proven treatments using adult stem cells, including treatments for Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, and anemia. Even better, researchers in Massachusetts recently found a way to transform regular skin cells into the equivalent of embryonic stem cells in mice. If we can funnel money into adult stem cell research, which has already shown tremendous promise and real results -- especially if these adult stem cells have the same function as embryonic stem cells -- while avoiding all of the ethical and moral questions, why wouldn't we? Similarly, cord blood banks, which collect and catalog umbilical cord blood to provide another method of obtaining viable stem cells, completely avoid the ethical and moral questions that squarely oppose embryonic stem cell research.
Fortunately, the human cloning bill didn't pass in the House - even 31 Democrats voted against it; even if it had passed, President Bush has vowed to veto any such bill that comes to his desk. It's good that the correct result was achieved in this instance, but the fact that such a bill even came up should be a shocking wake-up call that this issue is very much alive and kicking. Not to mention the fact that it was addressed during the much-publicized furor over the Senate immigration bill - was it coincidental timing, or slick political opportunism? Be aware, and pay attention. It'll be back again.
There's my two cents.
***Update: Here's a link to a chart that shows the list of treatments developed from adult stem cells.
As David Christensen writes, this bill would create a human cloning industry which -- through the doctor-patient privacy privilege -- law enforcement couldn't touch. Upon passage of such a bill, would researchers actually attempt to clone human beings? Yes. It's already been done in South Korea, where scientists have paid over 100 women for over 2,000 eggs. A human being has not yet been successfully cloned, but this should be an obvious warning to Americans. Another questionable clause in the bill would forfeit any property used to violate the ban on human cloning to the government. So, if a cloned baby were discovered, would the baby become the property of the US government? These questions are alarming, and the only way to avoid them altogether is to truly ban all attempts at cloning embryos, whether inside or outside of the womb.
The issue of stem cells is, of course, tightly interwoven with that of abortion. Why? It basically comes down to this: embryonic stem cells (i.e. pluripotent cells) have the potential to change into any type of cell found in the body, giving them the most 'potential' for usefulness. But, obviously, they can only come from embryos, which many Americans consider to be an early stage of human development. Therefore, to destroy an embryo is to destroy a human life. One of the resources I pointed out at the last election was this article from the St. Louis Center for Bioethics and Culture which describes the process of embryonic stem cell harvesting - if you don't understand how it works, check this out. I leave it to you to decide for yourself whether or not this process contitutes the destruction of a human life, but make sure you understand what is involved before you make your decision.
Anyway, the situation we have here is that what some believe is the greatest amount of potential for good treatments also requires by far the greatest amount of ethical and moral grappling. The catch is that there has not been a single cure or treatment produced from embryonic stem cell research. That's right, not a single one.
So what do we do? Fortunately, there are perfectly viable alternatives: adult stem cells and cord blood. To date, scientists have created over 70 proven treatments using adult stem cells, including treatments for Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, and anemia. Even better, researchers in Massachusetts recently found a way to transform regular skin cells into the equivalent of embryonic stem cells in mice. If we can funnel money into adult stem cell research, which has already shown tremendous promise and real results -- especially if these adult stem cells have the same function as embryonic stem cells -- while avoiding all of the ethical and moral questions, why wouldn't we? Similarly, cord blood banks, which collect and catalog umbilical cord blood to provide another method of obtaining viable stem cells, completely avoid the ethical and moral questions that squarely oppose embryonic stem cell research.
Fortunately, the human cloning bill didn't pass in the House - even 31 Democrats voted against it; even if it had passed, President Bush has vowed to veto any such bill that comes to his desk. It's good that the correct result was achieved in this instance, but the fact that such a bill even came up should be a shocking wake-up call that this issue is very much alive and kicking. Not to mention the fact that it was addressed during the much-publicized furor over the Senate immigration bill - was it coincidental timing, or slick political opportunism? Be aware, and pay attention. It'll be back again.
There's my two cents.
***Update: Here's a link to a chart that shows the list of treatments developed from adult stem cells.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Shamnesty, Here We Go Again!
The shamnesty bill is coming back to life, thanks to efforts from the White House and several waffling Senators (especially some key Republican sell-outs). What you're hearing in the mainstream media is that there will be an immediate up-front infusion of $4.4 billion for border security in exchange for the Senate re-examining the issue and addressing 20 or so amendments. Supporters are hopeful that enough support will be skimmed from the opposition to pass the bill.
Now, here's the real scoop.
The $4.4 billion is merely a pretext to allow a few Senators to ride both sides of the issue - they can still oppose amnesty (which they still say isn't a part of this bill), but they can also say they're 'tough' on border security. But, there are a few problems:
- there's no estimate from the White House of how much money the provision would generate yearly toward border security
- the White House could not say whether the money would be in addition to currently planned border security funding levels or just a way to dedicate funds to that purpose
- it wasn't clear what budget account would be drawn down to pay for the initial $4.4 billion
Seems a little too vague for my comfort level, especially given that this deal requires the "deal-makers" to go behind closed doors for the fourth time to work things out in secret! Again, what are they hiding?
Here's the big question in my mind: even if this extra money does get approved, what does it really accomplish? What's different about this deal that would make Americans believe that the government is actually going to secure the border this time? Let me remind you of some of the provisions in the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations and Secure Fence bill signed last year:
- $362 million for the US Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator (US-VISIT) project, which has been stymied for 11 years
- $7.4 billion for Customs and Border Protection (CBP), including $1.2 billion for fencing and other barriers along the border, and funding for 1,500 new Border Patrol agents
- $3.9 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
- $181 million for US Citizenship and Immigration services (USCIS)
How much of that has actually happened? To my knowledge, NONE of it. I've already blogged about the fence here, and I haven't seen anything concrete on any of the other items.
Here's another dirty little secret: John Hawkins at Right Wing News reports that "if the bill gets through the Senate and the House, the Democrats and the open borders Republicans will work together when the bills have to be reconciled in committee to strip out any amendments that the 'grand bargainers' don't like." That means the amnesty crowd gets everything they want unless the cloture vote fails (remember, cloture is a vote to end debate on a bill and go straight to the yes/no vote on the bill itself). If cloture passes, amnesty passes.
Call your Senators, and call the wafflers (they may not want to listen to you if you're not from their state, but they can't ignore a tidal wave). The key ones that need to be swamped with calls are Brownback (Rep, KS) because he's local and otherwise conservative; McConnell (Rep, KY), because he's the Senate Minority Leader; and Lott (Rep, MS), who is simply waffling because he knows the media wants this amnesty and he's trying to get some good press after his ousting from leadership over a racial comment about Strom Thurmond. If you have the time and inclination to make more calls, the rest of the Senators being targeted to remove their opposition are (a '*' means they're up for re-election in 2008):
- * Alexander (R-TN)
- Bennett (R-UT)
- * Cochran (R-MS)
- * Coleman (R-MN)
- * Collins (R-ME)
- * Cornyn (R-TX)
- * Craig (R-ID)
- * Domenici (R-NM)
- Gregg (R-NH)
- Hatch (R-UT)
- Hutchison (R-TX)
- Kyl (R-AZ)
- Murkowski (R-AK)
- * Smith (R-OR)
- Snowe (R-ME)
- Stevens (R-AK)
- * Warner (R-VA)
Again, the toll-free number is 800-417-7666, or you can find the number for the Capital Switchboard on my contact list to the right. Call these people and tell them you oppose the "amnesty for amendments" deal. It's now or never!
Some of our leaders think we're too stupid to realize what they're doing - granting amnesty to millions of illegals in exchange for an empty promise. Don't let them get away with it!
There's my two cents.
Now, here's the real scoop.
The $4.4 billion is merely a pretext to allow a few Senators to ride both sides of the issue - they can still oppose amnesty (which they still say isn't a part of this bill), but they can also say they're 'tough' on border security. But, there are a few problems:
- there's no estimate from the White House of how much money the provision would generate yearly toward border security
- the White House could not say whether the money would be in addition to currently planned border security funding levels or just a way to dedicate funds to that purpose
- it wasn't clear what budget account would be drawn down to pay for the initial $4.4 billion
Seems a little too vague for my comfort level, especially given that this deal requires the "deal-makers" to go behind closed doors for the fourth time to work things out in secret! Again, what are they hiding?
Here's the big question in my mind: even if this extra money does get approved, what does it really accomplish? What's different about this deal that would make Americans believe that the government is actually going to secure the border this time? Let me remind you of some of the provisions in the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations and Secure Fence bill signed last year:
- $362 million for the US Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator (US-VISIT) project, which has been stymied for 11 years
- $7.4 billion for Customs and Border Protection (CBP), including $1.2 billion for fencing and other barriers along the border, and funding for 1,500 new Border Patrol agents
- $3.9 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
- $181 million for US Citizenship and Immigration services (USCIS)
How much of that has actually happened? To my knowledge, NONE of it. I've already blogged about the fence here, and I haven't seen anything concrete on any of the other items.
Here's another dirty little secret: John Hawkins at Right Wing News reports that "if the bill gets through the Senate and the House, the Democrats and the open borders Republicans will work together when the bills have to be reconciled in committee to strip out any amendments that the 'grand bargainers' don't like." That means the amnesty crowd gets everything they want unless the cloture vote fails (remember, cloture is a vote to end debate on a bill and go straight to the yes/no vote on the bill itself). If cloture passes, amnesty passes.
Call your Senators, and call the wafflers (they may not want to listen to you if you're not from their state, but they can't ignore a tidal wave). The key ones that need to be swamped with calls are Brownback (Rep, KS) because he's local and otherwise conservative; McConnell (Rep, KY), because he's the Senate Minority Leader; and Lott (Rep, MS), who is simply waffling because he knows the media wants this amnesty and he's trying to get some good press after his ousting from leadership over a racial comment about Strom Thurmond. If you have the time and inclination to make more calls, the rest of the Senators being targeted to remove their opposition are (a '*' means they're up for re-election in 2008):
- * Alexander (R-TN)
- Bennett (R-UT)
- * Cochran (R-MS)
- * Coleman (R-MN)
- * Collins (R-ME)
- * Cornyn (R-TX)
- * Craig (R-ID)
- * Domenici (R-NM)
- Gregg (R-NH)
- Hatch (R-UT)
- Hutchison (R-TX)
- Kyl (R-AZ)
- Murkowski (R-AK)
- * Smith (R-OR)
- Snowe (R-ME)
- Stevens (R-AK)
- * Warner (R-VA)
Again, the toll-free number is 800-417-7666, or you can find the number for the Capital Switchboard on my contact list to the right. Call these people and tell them you oppose the "amnesty for amendments" deal. It's now or never!
Some of our leaders think we're too stupid to realize what they're doing - granting amnesty to millions of illegals in exchange for an empty promise. Don't let them get away with it!
There's my two cents.
Well Said!
Senator Jim DeMint (Rep, SC), one of the leaders of the opposition to the shamnesty bill, issued a statement yesterday in response to a $4.4 billion offer by the White House for an emergency funding bill to beef up border security in exchange for supporting the shamnesty bill. It's so simple and well-stated that I'm going to quote it rather than summarize it:
"I appreciate the effort to fund border security, but there’s simply no reason why we should be forced to tie amnesty to it. If the administration was serious about fulfilling the border security promises, then this funding should have been supported all along, not offered at the last minute to attract votes to a bad bill."
"We have a serious problem with our immigration system, but this mess of a bill is not the solution. It puts amnesty before security, contains loopholes for criminals, and will increase the burden on taxpayers."
"All of the border security triggers in this bill can already be implemented under current law. It is unfortunate that the bill supporters continue to hold border security hostage in return for passage of amnesty. Instead, they need to prove to the American people that they will secure the border first."
Thank you, Senator! Well said!
There's my two cents.
"I appreciate the effort to fund border security, but there’s simply no reason why we should be forced to tie amnesty to it. If the administration was serious about fulfilling the border security promises, then this funding should have been supported all along, not offered at the last minute to attract votes to a bad bill."
"We have a serious problem with our immigration system, but this mess of a bill is not the solution. It puts amnesty before security, contains loopholes for criminals, and will increase the burden on taxpayers."
"All of the border security triggers in this bill can already be implemented under current law. It is unfortunate that the bill supporters continue to hold border security hostage in return for passage of amnesty. Instead, they need to prove to the American people that they will secure the border first."
Thank you, Senator! Well said!
There's my two cents.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Bias in the Mainstream Media - They've Picked Their Side
I think few people would argue that the mainstream media (TV, most newspapers, etc.) has a liberal slant, but I think that most people also don't realize just how bad the slant is. For example, think about how many of these headlines you've seen in the past 60 days:
- William Jefferson (D-LA) Shatters Corruption Records: Democrat Possibly The Most Corrupt Congressman Ever
- Gupta's InfoUSA Pays Pelosi's Son
- Feinstein quits committee under war-profiteer cloud
- Hillary, Eavesdropper?
My guess is you've heard or seen one of them at most, but each of these involves major figures on the liberal side of the aisle engaging in unethical behavior at minimum, and at worst committing actual crimes. Here's a quick summary of each story:
- Jefferson: This Congressman from Louisiana was caught on tape accepting bribes for hundreds of thousands of dollars, $90,000 in cash was found in his freezer, and he pressed multiple rescue vehicles into his own private chauffer service during the Katrina aftermath.
- Pelosi: Paul Pelosi, son of Nancy Pelosi (current Speaker of the House), was given a $180,000 'salary' and a senior vice president position by Vinod Gupta at InfoUSA, who is a big Clinton supporter and liberal activist. Pelosi has no experience in InfoUSA's main business activities, and also holds down another full time job as a loan officer in a different company.
- Feinstein: Dianne Feinstein, a Senator from California, abruptly left her position on the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee after a report revealed she had funneled billions of dollars to her husband's construction companies.
- Clinton: This story on Slate.com reveals how the Clintons monitored cellphone conversations to discover potential problems with Bill's...uh...fidelity deficiencies. A new book entitled 'Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton' shows this is standard practice for the Clintons.
If you've seen two or more of these stories, think about where you saw them. All of these are significant issues that should be broadcast far and wide to the American people, but the mainstream media has buried them because their liberal slant (not to mention their liberal political friends) would be damaged.
Don't misunderstand me - all of these stories are about liberal Democrats, and I'm not making the case that all Republicans are squeaky clean. One only has to look at Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, and Mark Foley to discover that. The case I am making is the coverage of such scandals and indiscretions: the media is itself extremely liberal, and has become increasingly open about it over the past few years; it wants the liberal viewpoint to come out at all costs, so they shine a beacon on anything that agrees with it and bury everything else.
Case in point: ignoring good news that reflects conservative success. Did you know that a new study shows improvements in test scores since 2002, when Bush's No Child Left Behind policy took effect? What about the biggest one-day individual tax earnings in history as a result of Bush's tax cuts and a shrinking deficit? Have you watched the Dow lately? It passed 13,000 for the first time in history in April of this year and is now on its way to 14,000, but where are the headlines?
Nothing revealed the liberal bias like 'Rather-gate'. Dan Rather and the CBS Evening News ran a story in the last presidential election cycle that claimed Bush had shirked his duties in the National Guard and lied about it, using some old memos (which were forged) as 'proof'. It probably would have worked, if it hadn't been for the 'new media', which completely blew the fraudulent story out of the water. Even after having real proof presented, Rather and CBS did not retract their story or apologize (though Rather ended up 'retiring' and CBS's ratings haven't recovered since), instead saying essentially that although the memo itself was fake, they believed the story was still true.
This open bias is why the so-called 'new media' has gathered such tremendous momentum in just a few years. Most people want the truth, whether good or bad. With the truth (i.e. ALL the facts), people can make their own decisions about things, but the mainstream media doesn't get it. Want proof? Circulations of almost all major newspapers -- havens for liberal writers -- are down while most conservative papers are up. Fox News, one of the big names in the new media, has more viewers than CNN. Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly each have literally millions of people tuning in to their programs every day, multitudes more than any liberal show has ever had.
Millions of Americans have realized that they simply can't trust the mainstream media to provide objective reporting on events and issues anymore. It's become an agenda-driven wing of the liberal movement.
There's my two cents.
- William Jefferson (D-LA) Shatters Corruption Records: Democrat Possibly The Most Corrupt Congressman Ever
- Gupta's InfoUSA Pays Pelosi's Son
- Feinstein quits committee under war-profiteer cloud
- Hillary, Eavesdropper?
My guess is you've heard or seen one of them at most, but each of these involves major figures on the liberal side of the aisle engaging in unethical behavior at minimum, and at worst committing actual crimes. Here's a quick summary of each story:
- Jefferson: This Congressman from Louisiana was caught on tape accepting bribes for hundreds of thousands of dollars, $90,000 in cash was found in his freezer, and he pressed multiple rescue vehicles into his own private chauffer service during the Katrina aftermath.
- Pelosi: Paul Pelosi, son of Nancy Pelosi (current Speaker of the House), was given a $180,000 'salary' and a senior vice president position by Vinod Gupta at InfoUSA, who is a big Clinton supporter and liberal activist. Pelosi has no experience in InfoUSA's main business activities, and also holds down another full time job as a loan officer in a different company.
- Feinstein: Dianne Feinstein, a Senator from California, abruptly left her position on the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee after a report revealed she had funneled billions of dollars to her husband's construction companies.
- Clinton: This story on Slate.com reveals how the Clintons monitored cellphone conversations to discover potential problems with Bill's...uh...fidelity deficiencies. A new book entitled 'Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton' shows this is standard practice for the Clintons.
If you've seen two or more of these stories, think about where you saw them. All of these are significant issues that should be broadcast far and wide to the American people, but the mainstream media has buried them because their liberal slant (not to mention their liberal political friends) would be damaged.
Don't misunderstand me - all of these stories are about liberal Democrats, and I'm not making the case that all Republicans are squeaky clean. One only has to look at Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, and Mark Foley to discover that. The case I am making is the coverage of such scandals and indiscretions: the media is itself extremely liberal, and has become increasingly open about it over the past few years; it wants the liberal viewpoint to come out at all costs, so they shine a beacon on anything that agrees with it and bury everything else.
Case in point: ignoring good news that reflects conservative success. Did you know that a new study shows improvements in test scores since 2002, when Bush's No Child Left Behind policy took effect? What about the biggest one-day individual tax earnings in history as a result of Bush's tax cuts and a shrinking deficit? Have you watched the Dow lately? It passed 13,000 for the first time in history in April of this year and is now on its way to 14,000, but where are the headlines?
Nothing revealed the liberal bias like 'Rather-gate'. Dan Rather and the CBS Evening News ran a story in the last presidential election cycle that claimed Bush had shirked his duties in the National Guard and lied about it, using some old memos (which were forged) as 'proof'. It probably would have worked, if it hadn't been for the 'new media', which completely blew the fraudulent story out of the water. Even after having real proof presented, Rather and CBS did not retract their story or apologize (though Rather ended up 'retiring' and CBS's ratings haven't recovered since), instead saying essentially that although the memo itself was fake, they believed the story was still true.
This open bias is why the so-called 'new media' has gathered such tremendous momentum in just a few years. Most people want the truth, whether good or bad. With the truth (i.e. ALL the facts), people can make their own decisions about things, but the mainstream media doesn't get it. Want proof? Circulations of almost all major newspapers -- havens for liberal writers -- are down while most conservative papers are up. Fox News, one of the big names in the new media, has more viewers than CNN. Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly each have literally millions of people tuning in to their programs every day, multitudes more than any liberal show has ever had.
Millions of Americans have realized that they simply can't trust the mainstream media to provide objective reporting on events and issues anymore. It's become an agenda-driven wing of the liberal movement.
There's my two cents.
Fun and Frivolity: Squirrel Goes on Rampage
Okay, I couldn't help but post a link to this story. I'm not saying it's funny that people were injured, but can you seriously read this without at least cracking a smile??
Speaking of the Fence...
Here's some additional information on the fence that was supposedly begun in 2006. Michelle Malkin has posted a blog called 'FINO: fence in name only' that lays out a lot of good detail on the fence issue. Some important points to note:
- there is no current funding for the fence
- Congress estimates it will cost $3.2 million per mile
- the $1.2 billion allocated to build 370 miles of fence last fall are being used for other things
- the Bush administration has backed off on their original commitment to build at least 850 miles of fence, and is now saying 370 miles is sufficient
- the Bush administration is also favoring watered-down measures that will ultimately only monitor/block 950 miles of the 1,950 miles of the US/Mexico border (and only 370 of those miles will have a fence)
This could be a good place to start the immigration 'reform'...
There's my two cents.
- there is no current funding for the fence
- Congress estimates it will cost $3.2 million per mile
- the $1.2 billion allocated to build 370 miles of fence last fall are being used for other things
- the Bush administration has backed off on their original commitment to build at least 850 miles of fence, and is now saying 370 miles is sufficient
- the Bush administration is also favoring watered-down measures that will ultimately only monitor/block 950 miles of the 1,950 miles of the US/Mexico border (and only 370 of those miles will have a fence)
This could be a good place to start the immigration 'reform'...
There's my two cents.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
A Few More Thoughts on Illegal Immigration
I knew it! A Rasmussen poll published today echoes my previous blog (I swear I wrote the blog last night, even though I didn't post it until this afternoon!) suggesting that real progress could be made on immigration reform if we focus on enforcement first. According to this poll, only 20% of Americans want the immigration bill that failed in the Senate last week. However, 51% would like legislators to "take smaller steps towards reform". Even more important is the fact that a whopping 69% would like to see an approach that focuses "exclusively on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration". Very telling!
Another dirty little secret: One dirty little secret that you don't hear much in the mainstream media is that quite a few lawmakers and business people actually don't want to "fix" illegal immigration, especially the porous border problem. That's partly why there is such resistance to the wishes of a clear majority of the American people on this. Why? Follow the progression:
- illegal workers become legal workers
- newly-legalized workers demand higher pay now that they're legal
- many newly-legalized workers join unions (who are suffering from major shortages in participation and dues), who demand further wage increases and additional benefits
- many newly-legalized workers will vote in large numbers for whoever gives them the biggest increases and handouts
- businesses still want cheap labor, but the newly-legalized workers are now too expensive, so they go back to hiring illegals (a whole new set that has just arrived to fill the new vacuum of low-skill, low-wage jobs)
It's exactly what happened after the 1986 amnesty, and we can plainly see that it's a never-ending cycle that won't go away until the flow of incoming illegals is stopped at the source. That's why any real reform has to start with border security.
Besides, if low-skill, low-educated, low-wage workers are truly a requirement for our prosperous American society, wouldn't that hold true for other countries around the world? And if that holds true, shouldn't Mexico (and other 3rd-world countries) be pretty much a land of paradise? And yet, they still keep coming here...hm...
Here's proof: Judicial Watch posted a story today about a raid by immigration officials in Portland, Oregon where over 165 illegals were arrested. Get this: "At least 90 employees had fraudulent Social Security cards and many used the real Social Securities of juveniles, the elderly and the deceased. Others had fake green, or residency, cards and at least three are convicted felons who had been previously deported." Remember what I said in my first blog about identity theft? Here's a perfect example. But wait, there's more: Tom Potter, the Mayor of Portland, was outraged. Not at the illegals, not at the business that had hired them, and not even at the rampant identity theft. No, Mr. Potter "was outraged by the immigration raid, saying that it is bad policy for federal officials to go after local workers who are in his city", calling them "Portland residents". Thank you, Mr. Potter, for illustrating the liberal mindset beautifully.
But it gets even worse: Michelle Malkin writes a story in Jewish World Review describing how the legal system is abused by illegal aliens and their attorneys. She recounts how four men -- a child molester, two killers and a racketeer, all of whom had previously been found guilty, lost numerous appeals, and ordered deported -- just won a federal case in New York allowing them to stay in the US. She uses this story to illustrate a growing problem of our representatives in Congress (from both sides of the aisle) pushing special legislation through to provide "private relief" from deportation. As much as Kennedy and other open-borders proponents gripe about due process being violated in these circumstances, both the illegals and their lawyers know how to game the system in their favor. As Malkin says, "it ain't over 'til the alien wins".
These are outrageous actions, and any representative who does this should be voted out of office in the next election! Want to know who's doing it? Follow the instructions here to find the bills in question, then look to see who introduced the bill. See anyone who 'represents' you?
There's my two cents.
Another dirty little secret: One dirty little secret that you don't hear much in the mainstream media is that quite a few lawmakers and business people actually don't want to "fix" illegal immigration, especially the porous border problem. That's partly why there is such resistance to the wishes of a clear majority of the American people on this. Why? Follow the progression:
- illegal workers become legal workers
- newly-legalized workers demand higher pay now that they're legal
- many newly-legalized workers join unions (who are suffering from major shortages in participation and dues), who demand further wage increases and additional benefits
- many newly-legalized workers will vote in large numbers for whoever gives them the biggest increases and handouts
- businesses still want cheap labor, but the newly-legalized workers are now too expensive, so they go back to hiring illegals (a whole new set that has just arrived to fill the new vacuum of low-skill, low-wage jobs)
It's exactly what happened after the 1986 amnesty, and we can plainly see that it's a never-ending cycle that won't go away until the flow of incoming illegals is stopped at the source. That's why any real reform has to start with border security.
Besides, if low-skill, low-educated, low-wage workers are truly a requirement for our prosperous American society, wouldn't that hold true for other countries around the world? And if that holds true, shouldn't Mexico (and other 3rd-world countries) be pretty much a land of paradise? And yet, they still keep coming here...hm...
Here's proof: Judicial Watch posted a story today about a raid by immigration officials in Portland, Oregon where over 165 illegals were arrested. Get this: "At least 90 employees had fraudulent Social Security cards and many used the real Social Securities of juveniles, the elderly and the deceased. Others had fake green, or residency, cards and at least three are convicted felons who had been previously deported." Remember what I said in my first blog about identity theft? Here's a perfect example. But wait, there's more: Tom Potter, the Mayor of Portland, was outraged. Not at the illegals, not at the business that had hired them, and not even at the rampant identity theft. No, Mr. Potter "was outraged by the immigration raid, saying that it is bad policy for federal officials to go after local workers who are in his city", calling them "Portland residents". Thank you, Mr. Potter, for illustrating the liberal mindset beautifully.
But it gets even worse: Michelle Malkin writes a story in Jewish World Review describing how the legal system is abused by illegal aliens and their attorneys. She recounts how four men -- a child molester, two killers and a racketeer, all of whom had previously been found guilty, lost numerous appeals, and ordered deported -- just won a federal case in New York allowing them to stay in the US. She uses this story to illustrate a growing problem of our representatives in Congress (from both sides of the aisle) pushing special legislation through to provide "private relief" from deportation. As much as Kennedy and other open-borders proponents gripe about due process being violated in these circumstances, both the illegals and their lawyers know how to game the system in their favor. As Malkin says, "it ain't over 'til the alien wins".
These are outrageous actions, and any representative who does this should be voted out of office in the next election! Want to know who's doing it? Follow the instructions here to find the bills in question, then look to see who introduced the bill. See anyone who 'represents' you?
There's my two cents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)