Hypocrisy, Is It The New Kool Aid Flavor?

Over the past few weeks I have focused on the hypocrisy of President Obama and the rest of the political class in Washington DC. After reading the responses I have come to an interesting conclusion. There is just as much hypocrisy among his breathless devotees. Before I begin to detail the duplicity of those experiencing chills running up their legs, allow me to explain that not all of those who support the President’s socialistic agenda are hypocrites. There are some that support Obama and his misguided policies because they truly believe that socialism, for the first time in human history, will actually work. There are others, those of which I am referring to as hypocrites, which were vehemently opposed to various policies under the Bush administration, but are jumping to their feet to applaud the very same policies under an Obama administration.

During the summer of 2007, President Bush and members of both political parties were pushing for “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” that would grant amnesty to more than 12 million illegal aliens. The public outcry against the ill-conceived legislation was swift and fierce. Congress quickly folded under the public pressure and defeated the measure. The opposition to the amnesty bill was made up of conservatives, liberals, and moderates. Last week President Obama spoke of the need for immigration reform that would again grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Yet the silence from the Kool Aid drinking followers of the President was deafening. Why would someone oppose amnesty when proposed by Bush but yet support it when proposed by Obama?

During the 8 years of the Bush presidency, the screams against deficit spending came again from both conservatives and liberals alike. Conservatives railed against foolish legislation that added to the deficit spending. We opposed the expensive Medicare Prescription Drug plan because of the outrageous cost of the measure. We opposed the reluctance of Bush to veto any spending measure sent to his desk from Congress. Now that President Obama is in office, the some of the same people screaming at Bush’s deficit spending are strangely silent about President Obama’s budget plans that will increase the federal deficit by 4 times to $9.3 trillion. Why is it evil when Bush spends more than the government collects in tax revenue, but it is perfectly fine when Obama quadruples the deficit spending in his first 8 weeks in office?

When the news reports came out about the problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the outrage at Bush was immense. The anger was aimed at Bush because of the treatment of our country’s bravest men and women. President Obama even campaigned on better treatment for our veterans. Unfortunately this was yet another campaign pledge that was nothing more than empty campaign rhetoric. Last week the leaders of the American Legion reported on the President’s proposal to force the private insurance companies of combat injured veterans to pay for the medical costs associated with treating their combat related injuries. Again there was no cry from the swaying masses of the Obama acolytes. Why would they not care about the treatment of veterans by the Obama administration?

The answer to the above questions is obvious to anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty, hypocrisy. If you have the courage of your convictions, it will not matter who is proposing a policy. If the policy is at odds with your core beliefs then you will oppose it regardless of which political party is proposing it. I have been accused of being blinded by my partisanship, but if you read anything I wrote over the last year it would become obvious that my conservatism has remained steady. If a Republican, such as Bush, proposed something with which I disagreed, I voiced my opposition. On the same token, when Obama has said or done something with which I have agreed, I voiced my support. The only question that I have for those incapable of being honest with themselves is what flavor is the Obama Kool Aid?

What Everyone Missed in the Immigration Debate

Are we missing the big picture in the debate over immigration reform? I'm not just talking about the misguided politicians who tried to shove a ridiculous amnesty bill down our throats. Have we the people allowed what really happened to go over our heads?

This recently defeated attempt to allow millions of illegal aliens to get around the law is not the first of its kind. The conservative hero Ronald Reagan allowed this on a smaller scale in 1986. What was different back then?

For one thing, the political climate was much different. We allowed amnesty, and it caused the problem of illegal immigration to get much worse. Millions of people have snuck across the border since then because they saw that we did little to prevent it and they realized that we actually rewarded the behavior. Now we are worried about terrorists sneaking across the border alongside the people who are just looking for a better life. We have also seen an increase in crime and gang membership due to lack of enforcement. The list goes on.

Despite these important issues, I saw something else in this debate that really hasn't happened before. It wasn't just the facts I listed above that caused so many to speak up, to write their elected representatives, to place so many phone calls that it actually crashed the Senate switchboard and had Senators' aides filtering faxes and emails.

These things all happened not just because the political climate has changed, they happened because of our new ability to protest from the home and office.

Let me backtrack a little. We have been watching left wing protests on the television for decades. There were televised riots during the Vietnam War. Recently we have seen many protests over the Iraq War and of course we remember the millions of people all over the country protesting in support of the amnesty bill.

What we don't see is protests from right wing groups, at least not in large numbers. When have we ever seen the Million Man March for Tax Reform? When was the last protest to reform entitlement programs? Even now we have a small group of Iraq War vets who are trying to talk to the leaders of the Democratic Party in Washington, but they get little media and of course Harry Reid won't acknowledge the fact that they exist. Granted, this has some to do with the fact that the media pays no attention to right wing causes. But it is also due to few supporters making an effort to show up.

The left has always been more vocal. They have protests, they have celebrities, and they have film makers. The right doesn't do these things, probably because we are busy making sure the American economy doesn't shut down. We have jobs, we run businesses, and we raise our families, crazy things such as that.

What was different about the immigration issue was our ability to come together as one voice without having to interrupt our lives. Online resources such as NumbersUSA and Grassfire.org gave us several things. They gave us the information we needed to make informed decisions. They gave us the scoop on terrorists who were sneaking across the border. Michelle Malkin gave us news regarding crimes committed by people who were in this country illegally. Other resources like John Hawkins of Right Wing News gave us insider information of tactics being used by the pro-amnesty senators. The Heritage Foundation told us what amnesty would cost the tax-payer. NBER told us that illegal immigration was destroying the African-American community by giving their jobs to illegals who would work for less pay.

They also gave us the ability to communicate ideas on how to defeat the amnesty bill. They created online petitions, emails, and faxes to send to Congress. They used their status to gain the meetings with people like Tom Tancredo.

When these internet resources were joined by Conservative Talk Radio, there was hell to pay in the Senate. The likes of Rush and Hannity were giving their listeners the same tools that we were being given on the internet. This combination is what caused the switchboard to crash that day. This is what caused Senators to realize that their jobs were on the line. This is what killed the amnesty bill.

Believe it or not, Congress hasn't yet figured out what hit them. They have put the blame squarely on the shoulders of talk radio and have completely discounted the role played by the combined resources shared on the internet. To be honest, I'm glad they haven't figured it out yet because this helps us the next time they try to bring this bill back, whenever that may be.

But I question whether or not Conservatives citizens are actually aware of what happened. Do we see the power that we now have? Do we see that we now have the ability to take our country back using these same resources towards other issues? Why don't we join together in the same manner for tax reform? Why isn't there a movement like this to stop pork and earmarks? Why aren't we doing the same for tort reform?

The reality is that these movements do exist, they simply don't have the same force behind them yet. We are still fighting for border security of course, the amnesty fight was one battle in a bigger war. We have to ensure that this is taken care of because it seems that Congress got over amnesty and forgot about the fence. Did we come together to prevent a mistake, but now we can't get the same emphasis behind correcting a past issue? Have we learned that we have the ability to make real change in Washington? Was the battle to defeat amnesty our one big push, and now we go back to our routines?

I hope and pray that we have learned what we can do. It is not enough for Congress to be put into a place of fear over one issue. We must learn from this and use it to push them into a place of fear on every other issue that they are screwing up on a daily basis.

We have to get our country back. Someone get some more online faxes ready please.

The Immigration Defeat Fallout

The United States Senate failed pass a cloture motion that would have ended the debate over the controversial immigration reform package. The final vote was 46 in favor of cloture and 53 opposed. This was a stunning turnaround from the earlier vote this week that allowed the debate to edge closer to passage. If you have read my previous postings on this sham of a bill, you already know my feelings on this issue. So I won’t bore you with the myriad of reasons why this whole debate was ridiculous. I do want to talk about the message that many of the Senators that were ardent supporters of this reform package have sent to the people of the United States.

Throughout the past month of debate, we have heard many “intellectual” Senators in favor of this reform deal deride talk radio; claiming that the talking heads like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and Ingraham were leading the public astray with their lies and distortions. These claims are not new, in fact we have heard these same claims from many of the same people that are crying foul now. The difference this time is that Republican Senators are joining the chorus.

Senator Trent Lott claimed that talk radio was running the country, and that something needed to be done about it. Senator Lindsey Graham said that the “loud people” were the ones opposing the bill. I find it amusing that these same Senators have no problem appearing on talk radio shows when the commentators are agreeing with their point of view, but as soon as there is disagreement, then talk radio needs to be silenced.

Senators Diane Feinstein and Dick Durbin have openly called for the discussion to start on the return of the “Fairness Doctrine” to rein in talk radio. Senator Jim Inhofe claims to have overheard fellow Senators Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer discussing the need to find a “legislative fix” for talk radio. Why do politicians, of both parties apparently, automatically resort to finding a “legislative fix” for silencing their opposition? After all, wasn’t that what the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act was all about?

Before my left leaning friends start the cacophony of agreement with these misguided Senators, let’s take a closer look at the possibilities of such an action. First of all, it is disheartening to see Senators looking into silencing opposition. Their claim is to want balance in the media, but who decides what is balanced? If it is left up to the Senators, then we would be reading about how this immigration bill flew through Congress with bipartisan support.

Secondly, would the policy change every 2 to 4 years depending on who was in control of Congress or the White House? Obviously not everyone believes that the 3 major news networks are unbiased, so how would we get everyone to agree on a set of standards of “fairness”? What I believe is fair is not necessarily what you believe. If the Democrats are in control then we have Al Franken on the all talk radio, but if the Republicans win then we have wall to wall Rush?

No one is stopping Air America from becoming a success. The only thing standing in their way is their management, and maybe their talent. Rush Limbaugh is a success because he is a very talented talk radio host. Does he espouse conservative principles? Yes he does, but he is also very entertaining at the same time. Air America had the idea of just hiring liberal hosts and expecting it to work because they were the alternative to Limbaugh. Like it or not, talk radio is a business. Without listeners, who drive the ratings, no advertisers are going to buy air time on your shows. To keep the listeners, you need to provide some value to them. If the “Fairness Doctrine” is implemented, then stations will be required to offer a balanced format from both sides. Limbaugh would not go away, he is the most listened to radio program in the country, he would just be followed by someone like Al Franken. Based on Franken’s ratings while on the air, the radio station would start to lose money on advertising. The station management would be left with 2 choices, stay with the current format and lose money, or change formats.

Where would the “Fairness Doctrine” stop? Would it be limited to just political commentary? Or would religious programming be affected as well? Would the local Christian music station be required to play secular music just to be “fair”. Would a station that airs “Focus on the Family” be required to air a secular equivalent to James Dobson? What about the internet? Would we still be able to post on blogs without providing a “balanced” approach? I realize that the internet does not fall under the same rules as radio, but once you start playing the “fairness” game, it is awfully hard to stop, especially for politicians.

Congressman Mike Pence introduced legislation in the House to prevent the “Fairness Doctrine” from ever become law again. In Pence’s words he says, "The Broadcaster Freedom Act will prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from prescribing rules, regulations, or policies that will reinstate the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints in controversial issues of public importance. The Broadcaster Freedom Act will prevent the FCC or any future President from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. This legislation ensures true freedom and fairness will remain on our radio airwaves, and I would encourage my colleagues to cosponsor and support this bill.”

Will this legislation ever see the light of day? Only time will tell, but I believe that any attempt to reinstate the “Fairness Doctrine” is the wrong action to take. We should question any politician that wants to stifle the opposition legislatively. Remember that even though you may not like Rush and what he stands for, the limits placed on him could eventually be placed on your interests in the future.

Billions for Z Visas, Not a Cent for Security?

When proponents of comprehensive immigration reform decided they needed to sweeten the pot to get their bill passed, they added $4.4 billion that was supposedly to be spent up-front on border security. This was intended to partially satisfy the desire of millions of Americans that border security and employer enforcement be addressed first, and other measures considered only after we are satisfied that we have control over our borders.

Senator Jim DeMint was suspicious, however, and went to the Congressional Research Service for an opinion on how the $4.4 billion could be spent. The result was as you might suspect; what follows is DeMint's press release:

Power Line: Billions for Z Visas, Not a Cent for Security?

Senators Defect from Supporting Shamnesty Bill

According to Bloomberg, a few supporters of the ILLEGAL immigration bill are defecting. It seems that they are defecting because they were trying to install more common sense amendments. Those amendments are in jeopardy, so the entire process is in jeopardy.

I would chalk this up to bi-partisan anger.

Kill the Bill. Then secure the border.

PS, Harry Reid is a jackass.

Capitol Hill's Deaf Ears

My guide began to tell me of the hundreds of faxes Congressman Saxton’s office receives daily related to the Immigration bill; a stack of faxes “two or three inches deep,” she remarked. But she assured me that the three inch stack was nothing compared the quantity of faxes her fellow aides said were being received by those Senators directly associated with the Immigration Compromise.

Naturally I had to ask what Congressman Saxton thought of the near 500 faxes a day he was receiving from Americans who felt betrayed by their representation. Her reply was that the faxes were immediately recycled and that the Congressman never sees them.

read more

I want to make a new holiday. I want it to be called "Punch your Congress-Person in the Teeth for not Listening" day. If we discover that the they are completely ignoring the will of the people who put them into office, we get to line up and punch them in the mouth. I think I will fax this suggestion to Mel.

Quote of the Day and Some Thoughts About Shamnesty

"At this point, the people supporting this bill might as well be supporting putting crack in elementary school vending machines because quite frankly, it probably couldn't do much more damage to their political careers than this bill." John Hawkins -- rightwingnews.com

John lists a group of polls on his site this morning once again demonstrating a vile hatred of the Senate's Immigration Bill. But it is not only by Hawkins, nor just by conservatives, but also by liberals.

A Democracy Corps poll shows that democrats are evenly split over the issue. Voters said that they were more likely to support the bill if it tightened border security and stopped illegal aliens from getting government benefits. SFGate.com has info on that poll. Rasmussen polls show that only 20% of American voters support the bill, while almost 70% want an approach that focuses "exclusively on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration."

This has got to be the strangest paradox in political history. If you look at most polls, you will find that the splits are partisan. Example, look at a poll regarding George Bush and the economy. About 40% of voters give him high marks on the economy. If you break in down by party, 77% of Republicans give him high marks while only 10% of Democrats agree. On this issue those who would normally support a Republican president praise him, while those who would not support a Republican president do not.

Immigration is a different animal. This bill, and the president who is pushing it, is opposed by the left and the right. On this issue, the President gets high marks from 24% of Republicans and 10% of Democrats.

But despite this uniform opposition from the left and the right, the Senate and the President are on television daily explaining to us that they are pushing this reform because that's what American voters want them to do. And there was much confusion in the land.

Look, I'm not one to trust polls because I know that they can be skewed by biased pollsters. I also know that 90% of the people responding to these polls have done not one bit of research into the subject matter. But this is more overwhelming than most. There is no support for Immigration Reform, but we have morons in DC who swear to us that it has vast support and that it is absolutely necessary. How is this even possible? Have Bush and Cheney stopped watching Fox News?

Completely left out of the debate in DC is the fact that there is no support for this bill. Completely left out of why there is no support for this bill is the fact that Congress was not given permission to create new laws in an effort to cover up the fact that it refused to enforce laws that have been on the books for decades.

Take a look at what Hawkins has to say. If I keep typing, I'm going to get angry and punch my monitor.

The Fraud Of Illegal Immigration

The President and Congress refuse to listen to the American people and let the latest version of the immigration reform bill die. The proponents of the bill speak about the need to do this now and that any changes will render the entire bill meaningless. They vilify anyone who dares to question the aspects of the bill. They have used a myriad of insults and labels to try to quiet the deafening outcry from the very same people who voted them into power.

The latest poll done by Zogby International has shown that virtually no one in the country believes that Congress or the administration is properly handling the illegal immigration issue. A paltry 9% of respondents support the President’s efforts on this topic. As bad as Bush’s numbers are, Congress rates even lower at a shocking 3%. These numbers are even more surprising when it is revealed that the illegal immigration issue is the second most important issue facing our country today. How can a President and a majority of Congress ignore over 90% of the American public?

Over the past several weeks we have witnessed many of the advocates of this bill go on a media blitz to try to win support. All of them use the same lines about how we are all just wrong about the bill and how now is the only time we can accomplish this reform. There are several questions that have risen up in my feeble little mind while listening to the rants.

First of all, we are told that this bill does not provide amnesty because those that are here illegally must pay a fine and wait about 8 years before they can become citizens. In the meantime they can apply for Z visas and live and work as normal U.S. citizens. This aspect of Z visas is a slap in the face of all of the legal immigrants that are currently here working on H1B visas. These legal immigrants cannot change jobs or get a promotion without losing their place in line for a green card. Z visa recipients are not held to these same standards.

Secondly, we are told that the act of crossing the border illegally is nothing more than a misdemeanor and the punishment, a $5000 fine, fits the crime. That logic assumes that once here the illegal immigrant breaks no other laws. The proponents have told us that they are here to do work that Americans won’t do. Let’s look at that statement. In order to do work “legally” they must have a valid social security number, which because they broke the law to get here, do not. In this case they either buy a valid SSN, which has been stolen from someone else, or they simply make one up. Both situations are crimes. If they decide to work “under the table” without reporting any income to the IRS, then we are looking at tax fraud. Add these to the already acknowledged misdemeanor of being here illegally and the punishment certainly does not fit the crime.

Following the logic that they are here to do work that Americans won’t do, if the jobs paid more than Americans would line up to work in the fields. The illegal immigrants accept less money than American citizens do to do the same work. They accept less because of their illegal status. Does anyone believe that they will continue to work for less money than the employee next to them once they attain legal status? There are also many cases where INS has gone in and conducted raids at manufacturing facilities and rounded up hundreds of illegal immigrants. The factory then has to fill those positions with legal workers. In every case those jobs, that Americans just won’t do, were filled immediately.

The proponents of this reform legislation have said that the current laws don’t provide stiff enough penalties to employers or illegal immigrants to deter anyone from breaking the law. That is why we need to act now to beef up the law. That is a frightening statement. So if a punishment is not harsh enough, we just don’t enforce the law? That does not make any sense, but yet that is essentially what we are being told. Here is a novel idea. Why don’t we try enforcing the current laws as written and see how effective they are?

This is precisely why the American public does not have any faith in the government, be it the President or Congress, to make this reform package work. The bureaucrats in Washington tried this same approach in the 60’s and the 80’s to combat illegal immigration. Even the feeble minded, like myself, can see that their reforms didn’t work in either case previously, but yet we should trust them to get it right this time? The country is at a unique point in our history, the voters of both parties are very unhappy with their elected representatives. The elections of next year could very well determine what path our country goes down. Will we continue with the status quo approach of sending the same tired candidates back to Washington? Or will there be a political uprising, where the voters of this great country send men and women to Washington who are more interested in doing what is best for our country than furthering their political careers?

Amnesty Equals No Dollars.

What a GREAT day I had today. My mother is in town for a few weeks and decided to have her mail temporarily forwarded to our house. So today in the mail is two wonderful little items, her renewal fees for the GOP and a card from President Bush trying to get additional donations and a birthday card we were supposed to fill out and send back to him.

Yeah, I filled it out.

You will have to excuse me, Spanish isn't really my thing, but the card went something like this.

"El Presidenta. Gracias for the social security. Signed, Hector from venezuala."

I was really tired and didn't have the brain power to think up a bit more, or to actually check my spelling.

Oh yeah, two different forms that were asking for money. Well, I took some advice from a Michelle Malkin archive.



Yeah, It was a great day today.

Note: The above scan is not mine. I am using it as the example of what I did. The above was sent to Malkin from one of her readers.

Tom Tancredo Pimp Slaps Shamnesty Supporters.

From the Congressman's website.

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo’s (R-CO) amendment to cut funding from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Bill (H.R. 2638) for cities that employ a sanctuary policy passed the House with strong bipartisan support today; 234 to 189.

“The times, they are a changing,” said an exuberant Tancredo, who had introduced the same amendment several times in the past with far less support. “This should also serve as a warning sign to the White House and supporters of re-introducing an amnesty bill from the Senate. If that legislation makes it to the House, it is in serious trouble.”

The Amendment would prevent cities like Denver and San Francisco who employ a sanctuary policy for illegal aliens from receiving first responder funds, including law enforcement and terrorism prevention grants, among other programs.

Tancredo concluded, “The days that local officials could pander to the open borders special interests are over.”

Hot Air has additional coverage.

Can Romney Gain Points by Announcing His Running Mate Now?

Oh the little things.

I have a written a couple of pieces about Senator Jim DeMint on my blog recently, I have also posted his latest statement about the shamnesty bill that he is trying to kill. I have made no secret that he has recently gained a great deal of support from myself. I thought about trying to draft him into the presidential race and also suggested that he would make a great running mate for Fred Thompson.

But some additional research makes me wonder if another candidate isn't already considering DeMint for the position of Vice President.

I didn't know this until moments ago, but Jim DeMint has endorsed Mitt Romney and in fact is the senior advisor to the Romney for President Exploratory Committee. I have attached the links for the Press Release and the letter of support from Senator DeMint. If DeMint were more popular back in January when he endorsed Romney, this would have probably been bigger news and I probably wouldn't be sitting here saying, "Wow, look at that." But due to the fact that DeMint has just recently gained any real popularity, I am just now seeing this. I am also wondering if a few people wont read this while they are thinking to themselves that they have known this for a long time and that it isn't new news. Well, it's new to me.

"We must elect a President in 2008 who is up to the task, and I need you to encourage Mitt to run. ... As a leader who has spent most of his life in the private sector, Governor Romney will call on America's strength and character to solve problems and secure our future."

I am not sure what to think of Romney or DeMint to be honest. They are both on the radar just very recently, so their politics is only known by those who have done the research. I have been considering supporting Romney in the primaries, even over the prospect of Fred Thompson. And now that I see support from Senator DeMint, who had done a great job preventing the shamnesty bill from going to a vote, Romney has gained points in my view.

If Romney were to give indication that Senator DeMint was his choice for a running mate, he would shoot up the ladder. I may be wrong, but I think that DeMint was mentioned as a possibility when Romney was name dropping a few weeks back. And if the Senator is able to defeat shamnesty, they would gain favor in the ranks of conservatives who are against this bill. Much of the political landscape is going to be shaped by what happens to this bill and what action is taken for border security. Conservatives are split over this issue by those who want to support the GOP at all costs and those who are more concerned about policy that party. The candidate who can mend this split has the best shot at becoming the next President of the United States.

DeMint Statement on Border Security

June 14th, 2007 - Washington, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) made the following statement:

"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."

On Tuesday, nine U.S. Senators wrote a letter to President Bush urging him to fulfill the border security provisions listed in the Senate immigration bill whether the legislation passes or not. Each border security trigger in the bill can be implemented under current law without any need for new legislation from Congress. For the text of the letter and facts on the border security provisions, click here.

What Would Reagan Do?

This week marks the 20th anniversary of President Ronald Reagan’s speech before the Berlin Wall. Reagan’s remarks were immediately condemned by the left wing political pundits, the state department bureaucrats, and the media. Their main point of contention was the phrase, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” Their fear was the same throughout Reagan’s entire presidency. The bureaucratic apprehension was that at any moment, Reagan would plunge the United States and the rest of the world into a nuclear holocaust.

For all of the wailing and shrieking from the far left, Reagan was elected in a landslide victory over President Jimmy Carter. Four years later, Reagan defeated Walter Mondale in a historic landslide victory. What made Reagan unique was his steadfast belief in freedom and the potential of the American people. His policies and leadership brought the country out of the malaise of the Carter years. Reagan’s conservative ideals turned around the double digit inflation and nightmarish unemployment lines.

This week also marked a renewed effort by President Bush and the Congress to push through the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill. The bill has created a deep rift between the administration and the conservative base of the Republican party. The base is demanding that the border be secured first and then we can discuss the other aspects of the immigration bill. The supporters of the bill have alienated all those who are opposed to the bill, causing many within the party to question the commitment of the party to conservatism.

I realize that Reagan signed the immigration bill in 1986 that granted amnesty to over 3 million illegal immigrants, but I believe that the Republican party needs a Reaganesque candidate for 2008. I firmly believe that the Republicans don’t stand a chance unless someone emerges to lead the party back to conservatism. Reagan believed that all of us were created to be free, and with that freedom we have the potential to be great. Listening to the current crop of declared candidates from both parties, reminds me of a bad high school play. A group of amateurs trying to act like something they are not.

Senator John McCain may try to sound like a conservative, but his recent staunch support for the immigration bill has sealed his fate as a RINO(Republican In Name Only). Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is a conservative on some of the issues, such as the war on terror and taxes, but on many of the other pressing issues he has struggled to find a position. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is conservative as well on many issues, but he has labored over the past few years to find his conservative voice. Shouldn’t a presidential candidate know where they stand before they declare themselves a candidate?

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is a conservative that knows where he stands and hasn’t waffled on the issues of today. Newt’s biggest obstacle, should he decide to run, is that he led the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton while he was having his own extramarital affair. I know that the impeachment was not about sex or adultery, but it is too big of a target for the media, blogosphere, or the Democratic competition.

Former Senator Fred Thompson is also a potential candidate who knows where he stands on the issues. Thompson has been a conservative for his entire political career, but questions arose when he supported the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill. Fred has honed his communication skills over the years as an actor in movies and the TV series “Law And Order”. Thompson could be the candidate to carry the Reagan mantle, but only time will tell. There is still plenty of time before the first votes are cast in the primaries.

Inside the Oval...A Parody

Scene: White House Oval Office, President receiving advisors Thursday evening. Unknown aide enters. Aide: "Mr. President, Your Illegal immigration Bill was just defeated in the Senate a few minutes ago." George W. Bush (GWB): "It is not an amnesty!"

read more digg story

Maybe We Should Draft This Guy

As all of my loyal readers are aware (both of you), I recently awarded Jim DeMint "Coolest Person In Congress At The Moment." This is a very prestigious award in certain ranks. It just happens that those ranks are very secretive, so chances are you have never heard of them.

I did a little investigation, which means I looked at Senator DeMint's website. I discovered that his push to stop shamnesty isn't the only thing that makes this man a patriot and a great American who should be placed upon a pedestal and have his praises sung to him. Ok, maybe I'm a little overboard.

Senator DeMint also supports a version of the Consumption Tax, or Fair Tax. He calls it the "8.5% Tax Reform Plan." The specifics are on his website. Here are the highlights:

Replace all individual federal income taxes with a flat 8.5% national retail sales tax on new goods and services.

Provide a universal rebate to all Americans so that the poor are not taxed on basic consumption. The rebate is applied through the reduction in payroll taxes.

Replace all corporate income taxes with a flat 8.5% business transfer tax.

He claims that this is revenue neutral. This is a matter of debate. The estimates for a needed consumption tax rate have been between 23% and 35% to ensure that the federal revenues continue to rise to pay for all of the very necessary earmarks for Congressional pet projects that mean nothing to the average taxpayer. However, the argument remains that if we had such bold tax reform, it would increase economical investment in the U.S. to such an extent that tax revenues could possibly increase substantially. Companies and individuals would no longer spend untold billions on tax preparations and the prices of goods and services would decrease. Fewer jobs would be sent overseas. This may or may not be tax neutral, the problem is that we just don't know until we try it. It is all economical theory. Of course, if you added this bold reform to spending reform, it increases your chances of tax neutrality.

Because this is so debatable an issue, we will instead stick to the 45,000 page long IRS tax code that no one understands and which currently allows an estimated 400 billion dollars in tax cheats each year. That is an interesting estimate because if the IRS were collecting it, there would be no federal deficit at the moment. I just thought I would mention that part.

Senator DeMint seems to have a strong position on two very important issues, borders and taxes. This is why I would like to see him have more of a leadership roll in the Republican Party in D.C. right now. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing this guy as a Presidential candidate. I like his stance on both of these very important issues, and he demonstrated an ability last week to play the political game when it was necessary to help stall the horrible shamnesty bill, I mean the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" bill. No, I mean shamnesty. He was able to gain enough support from a handful of Republicans and Democrats to force a vote the stalled the bill. He will now be judged on his ability to finish killing this thing. If he can get it done, it would certainly help him gain popularity with the American public.

Of course there are already ten men running for the GOP nomination. The two most liberal are the front runners because they are popular. Senator DeMint is not popular like McCain and Giuliani, and he isn't an actor. If he jumped into the race, he would lose. And we would probably lose too because he would be focusing on his campaign and his help in defeating shamnesty would be missed.

I do have a compromise however. Maybe DeMint should be Fred Thompson's running mate.

Bipartisan Betrayal On Immigration

By THOMAS SOWELL Posted Tuesday, June 12, 2007 4:30 PM PT

With immigration, as with other issues, the most important decision is: Who is to make the decision?

It should be too obvious for words that decisions about who is to come into the U.S. and live among Americans should be made in the United States by Americans.

Read More

Sen. DeMint Does Not See Immigration Bill Passing (Video)

Gateway Pundit: Sen. DeMint Does Not See Immigration Bill Passing (Video)

Ace of Spades: Almost All "New" Enforcement Promises In Amnesty Bill Are *Already* Law, And Yet Entirely Unenforced; Why Should We Believe The Promise To Enforce In The Future What They Won't Enforce Now?

Michelle Malkin: Kill the Bill: Quote of the day
"We . . . have lost credibility in Washington on the issue, and I think before the American people will really ever get behind an immigration policy, they're going to have to feel that Washington is truly going to follow through on what it says," said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).

Message to the GOP -- We Are Not Democrats

This is one reason why my voter card has an "I" for "Independent"
by The New Pundit

To quote John Hawkins, "The GOP seems to be under the impression that conservatives have a duty to support their policies and decisions in office. This is exactly backwards and is the sort of thinking you'd expect from Feudal lords, not from American politicians. Conservatives put these Republicans into office to represent our views and the reason they're not getting a lot of support from the base is because they're doing a very poor job of showing us that they're listening and responding to what we want them to do."

It seems that the Republicans in Congress have mistaken us. They seem to believe that we are in fact Democrats. I can understand the kind of thinking that Hawkins describes above in the circles of people like Pelosi and Reid, but not in the circles of people like McCain and Graham. Let's take a good look at the thought process of the average Democrat. I'll give some examples.

Many Democrats are of the belief that Clinton was the greatest president ever. Ask them why and they spout off things about the economy and that our country was at peace with the rest of the world. They of course don't talk about the fact that Clinton was handed an economy that was already booming, and gave it to Bush Jr. on the brink of recession. They also fail to discuss the fact that Clinton sent out more force deployments than any president since WW2, most of which were abject failures. They also gloss over the fact that much of the strife today took hold while he was in office and was in fact made worse because of the failures of his deployments. That isn't peace.

Democrats believe that Carter was a great president. They forget that he installed the current government in Iran. They forget about the horrible economy that he made worse.

There are numerous examples of democrats holding up their own, while shouting in protest when the other side actually agrees with them. Clinton was the one who suggested putting Social Security funds into the stock market. Clinton was the one who signed the Iraq Liberation Act. When Bush tries to move both of these forward, he is called an oil loving Hitler by the same people who applauded Clinton.

There are many other examples I could give, (Sandy Berger, William Jefferson) but I want to get to the point. Democrats have a history of doing exactly as they are told. They rarely hold their politicians accountable for their actions, such as a homosexual relationship with an underage page. We have all come to expect this.

But for some reason, it seems that Republicans believe that their supporters are just that, supporters. Hawkins nails them down pretty well. They are under the impression that we are here to give them a rubber stamp. There is no better example than in the current debate over immigration.

Conservatives have been screaming about the problem at the southern border for a long time. As this issue has cost taxpayers more and more, we have become more and more vocal about our displeasure. Illegal aliens, despite the lie about them doing jobs Americans won't do, are a net loss to our economy. As the number of illegal aliens increases, so increases the unemployment rate and the crime rate within the black community as the illegal aliens take jobs from that community by accepting lower wages. And now we know that they are bringing terrorists with them. We now know that Hugo Chavez is aligned with Iran to bring down the U.S. We know that Al-Qaeda has set up training camps in South American countries to send people through the border. Our voices have become louder and louder as we have more and more reasons to show concern.

Given all of this, how does D.C. decide to handle the lack of law enforcement at our borders? They decide to make new laws. Legislation for legislation's sake. They decided that we need "Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Not only did Republicans jump on board this bandwagon, but it is in fact the Republican President who has led the charge.

I'm going to be frank here. Let me clear my throat. Every single person in Congress who is showing any support whatsoever for the half dead immigration bill that Ted Kennedy and his cohorts put together is in blatant violation of the United States Constitution and needs to be impeached. It is that simple.

Here is my message to the Republicans in Congress. We are not Democrats. We do not support you when you do not support us. When you lie and cheat, we hold you accountable. Apparently you didn't figure this out last year when you made Nancy Pelosi 2nd in line to the President. I know that the Democrats had to lie and cheat to take the majority, but you allowed it to happen when you acted like them. You acted like the Democratic Party and then expected conservative voters to act like Democratic voters. I don't know how it is that you didn't realize how badly you pissed us off. You pissed us off then and you are pissing us off now. STOP PISSING US OFF!!!!! Is this clear yet? If it is not clear yet, we are going to have a Democratic majority for a long while. We are also going to have a Democratic president in a couple of years. Most of the people I know can't afford the taxes and jacked up health care that this will surely bring.

If this does not stop, the Democrats will take over. The really bad news is that when they take over, they will take these same problems and make them worse. That is what they are good at. And the Republican Party politicians will have only themselves to blame.

We are not Democrats.

Quote Of The Day: Chappaquiddick & Immigration

"This morning’s New York Times publishes a moving tribute to Ted Kennedy’s efforts to save his sinking Oldsmobile of an immigration bill as it plunged to the ocean floor. If only liberalism’s last lion had shown such determination and interest in saving Mary Jo Kopechne." -- Dean Barnett

Go to Right Wing News to get Hawkins comments and the full article. Very good stuff.

And the Winner Is...

By The New Pundit
According to John Hawkins of rightwingnews.com, the phone calls and petitions against the shamnesty bill may be having an influence.

"I asked my source if his boss has been hearing from his constituents on this bill and what the for and against ratio was. He said that they have received thousands and thousands of calls and the ratio was something like 95%-98% against the bill."

According to the same article, it looks like part of the reason this bill wont make it is Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina. I am thinking of moving there just to vote for him next time he is due.

Apparently, DeMint led the charge to add amendments to the bill that would require border security be in place before shamnesty is allowed and would require illegal aliens to have private health insurance in place before they can receive a Z visa. These two amendments posed a problem for Reid and others, and for a very obvious reason. They make too much sense. These amendments would be completely unfair to the people who have broken the law by sneaking across the border and using fake identification to take low-skilled jobs away from our current welfare recipients. They would be really fair to the hard working people who are legal citizens of this country, but as we all know, these people and their opinions are being left out of the entire process by the shamnesty supporters.

Reid and company did not want these amendments to be discussed or voted upon because they would put a huge strain on the charge to destroy our country. They would basically make the heart of the bill completely worthless because the point of this bill is to allow shamnesty to a bunch of criminals without requiring them to do much of anything in return. All of this led to a whole mess of D.C. insanity and basically stalled the bill altogether and may actually kill it, God-willing.

In the meantime, Jim DeMint is the winner of a brand new award. He is the recipient of the "Coolest Person In Congress At The Moment" award.

Republican Backstabbing And Political Suicide

by Troy Stouffer

I am an opinionated conservative. Because I have strong opinions and I am not afraid to voice my opinion, I have developed a thick skin for name calling and personal attacks. I am not unique in that respect. Many of my friends on the opposite end of the political spectrum have become accustomed to the vitriolic attacks on their beliefs. Most of us that enjoy the political process realize that this is all part of the game, but normally the attacks come from the other party.

This latest feeble attempt at immigration reform has brought out some of the worst attacks from the leaders of the Republican party. In the past couple of weeks, anyone who is opposed to the bill has been called xenophobic, bigoted, racist, unpatriotic, and had our intelligence questioned. Linda Chavez wrote an article recently where she equated the opposition to the bill to racism and hatred for anyone from “south of the border”. When pressed on the issue, Chavez admitted that a minority of the opposition, roughly 10%, is made up of the xenophobes.

The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal recently released some audio of one of their editorial meetings. Their condescension for the conservatives that were opposed to the bill was loud and obnoxious. I am the first to admit that I am not a scholar or an intellectual. I do not have a Master’s degree or even a Bachelor’s degree. I think the only time I am the smartest person in the room, is when I am alone. Even though I am intellectually challenged, I can see that this is bad legislation. One aspect stands out though, the “Intellectuals” have been working on reforming immigration for over 40 years and not resolved the problem. Maybe it is time we listen to those of us who are the uninformed and less intelligent than the political elite.

Not all of the politicians in Washington D.C. have succumbed to the political pressure from their parties to back this bill. From the start of this debate over 2 weeks ago, the supporters of the bill warned that any changes to the bill would cause the legislation to be ineffective. Many proposals have been blocked by the once staunch supporters of the reform. One amendment that was defeated was to block the legal status of those illegal immigrants who have been ordered to be deported by a judge, but then failed to appear in court.

The Democrats are not without blame on this reform bill. Senator Edward Kennedy was a driving force in the writing of this bill. Kennedy has been a key player on every major immigration reform package since his political career began over 40 years ago. I have to ask the question, if Teddy has not been able to fix this problem in 40 years of trying the same tactics, why does he believe this will be any different? Can anyone tell me a simple definition of insanity? For my “intellectual” readers, doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently said that if this bill fails it will be seen as a failure for President Bush. I agree that it will be seen as a failure for Bush, but it should also be seen as a failure for Reid, McCain, Kennedy, and any other politician that backed this bill. They should also be held accountable if the bill passes as it is written now. Reid and the Democrats could not even muster the necessary 60 votes to end debate on Thursday and bring the measure to a full vote. They only managed to get 33 votes to end the debate. Hardly close to the slim majority that the Democrats hold in the Senate.

I am usually not prone to political predictions, but in this case I will go out on a limb and make a few predictions. If this bill passes as it is written now, the Republicans will lose more seats in both houses of Congress and have zero chance of a Republican candidate winning the White House in 2008. The conservatives will not suddenly vote for the Democrats. They will back challengers to the incumbents in the primaries and will stay home on election day rather than vote for any candidate that had a hand in passing this legislation into law. One other point that has conservatives up in arms is the wall to wall assault by the administration in support of this bill. Where has this energy been on other issues for which the conservative base was screaming?

‘Border-Fence Logic’ Sets Dangerous Precedents

Common sense dictates that any effort to secure the 1,950-mile U.S.-Mexican border should involve construction of a fence that spans the entire length of that border. Unfortunately, common sense is a rare commodity in Washington, D.C., as evidenced by the fact that current legislative proposals address barely 870 miles of border. Makes me wonder what would happen if we applied BORDER-FENCE LOGIC to other areas of our society.

Read More

Flood the amnesty hotline!

Helps you call your senator. Help capitol hill understand we want to stop paying for illegal aliens and want to close our borders.

read more digg story

Completely Worthless Immigration Reform

As the Senate continues to debate the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, the American people are rapidly becoming aware of the details of the bill. As has been the case over the past several years, most Americans do not favor giving amnesty to over 12,000,000 illegal immigrants. The administration and the congressional proponents of the bill claim that it will not provide amnesty but it will give these hard working people a path to citizenship.

Carlos Gutierrez, Commerce Secretary, and Michael Chertoff, Homeland Security Secretary, were the administration’s representatives during the closed door negotiations with members of both political parties for the writing of the bill. Both Secretary’s met with the USA Today editorial board to discuss the new immigration bill. Chertoff asserts that it is impossible to deport all of the illegal immigrants and that if we do not pass something now that millions of families will be without any way of becoming legal. Gutierrez’ comments are a bit more telling. He stated that it was a way to bring more workers into the U.S. workforce.

Chertoff’s comments begs the question, When have we tried to enforce the existing immigration laws and allowed the border patrol to do their job? Why is now the only time to handle this problem? With the federal, state, and local governments’ past history of willingness of enforcing the existing laws, who really believes that the new laws will ever be enforced?

Gutierrez’ statements shed some sunshine on a new tactic to expand the size of government and increase the taxpayer rolls. Is this the new plan to “fix” Social Security? Most of these “undocumented” workers are using stolen social security numbers and are paying into social security. Wasn’t that one of the myriad of reasons why we needed to grant them all amnesty?

Senator Mel Martinez, the General Chair of the Republican National Committee, stated that the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill has the potential to save the GOP. Mr. Martinez fails to realize that the illegal immigration problem is not a republican or democratic problem, it is an American problem that needs to be addressed in a manner that will improve our homeland security and our border security.

Senator Ted Kennedy has been involved with immigration reform since 1965 when he managed that legislation on the Senate floor. He was a pivotal player in the 1986 version of reform. Once again, Teddy is heavily involved in the most recent version of immigration reform. Each time the debate heats up over immigration, Kennedy is first on the scene to handle the situation and solve the problem. The 1986 reform package led to amnesty for over 3,000,000 illegal immigrants and Kennedy and others led us to believe that this was necessary to stop illegal immigration. 20 years later and the numbers have grown four times and this time they are sure that they can fix the problem.

I believe the Republican support is coming from the business interest in cheap labor and the administration’s desire for more taxpaying workers. This thinking is flawed in that, the current illegal workers, work cheaply because of their illegal status. Once they are granted amnesty and become legal workers, they will immediately demand higher wages and benefits. The tax issue has already been covered. These illegal workers already have stolen social security numbers to pay into the system. I believe the Democrats support is based solely on the belief that these illegal immigrants will vote along the Democratic party line once they attain legal status.

Our elected representatives in Washington are playing a political game with the security of our border and our country. Where in this bill is the solution to border security? They have spent a great deal of time debating ways to enable the illegal immigrants to “come out of the shadows”, but how do they propose to prevent another 40,000,000 or 50,000,000 illegal immigrants from crossing into our country? I believe that if this legislation is passed, the $5000 fine will be waived or forgotten, and 20 years from now we will be debating what to do about the 50,000,000 illegal immigrants living and working in our country.

Effects of Immigration on African-American Employment and Incarceration

A new NBER study suggests that immigration has more far-reaching consequences than merely depressing wages and lowering employment rates of low-skilled African-American males: its effects also appear to push some would-be workers into crime and, later, into prison.

read more digg story

Only 26% Favor Immigration Bill

New survey shows U.S. voters passionate about enforcement. So will law makers listen to us?

read more digg story

Kennedy Has Good Laugh Over Amnesty Bill

Why Are These Men Laughing About Amnesty While Grassroots America Cries Out?
by Steve Elliott, Grassfire.org

read more digg story

Run Fred Run, But Will Newt Run With You?

Newt Gingrich recently told Diane Sawyer that there was a great possibility that he would run for president. He said sometime last year that he would run if he felt that there was no other strong candidate in the GOP. He seemed to infer that he would run if he thought there was no one strong enough to stop Hillary. Well, there is someone strong enough to beat her; the problem that that someone is Barack Obama.

Newt has been setting himself up for a run for quite some time. He has been very active in politics. You can read his articles at Human Events. He is pretty regular on FoxNews. He has been very active in working for health care reform and has even given testimony in front of Congress on changes that could be made to lower costs for the poorest of Americans without raising taxes. His book, "Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America" is great. If he were able to implement everything in that book while wisely conducting the War on Terror, he would easily go down as one of the greats. He would have to get everything past Congress of course. He is very vocal regarding immigration and the need to secure the border, a hot topic issue with conservatives, and with many liberals also.

So, the problem is this thing with an ex-wife. His past indiscretions are seen as a huge roadblock. Conservatives see it as a betrayal of core values, and liberals see him as a hypocrite for going after Clinton. Granted, Newt didn't commit perjury, so the liberals have little to stand on. But they are convinced that Clinton did nothing wrong, and they won't let facts get in the way of their agenda. Conservatives take issue with Newt because some are concerned that one who cheats on his wife will cheat on his country.

All this aside, Newt is a potential candidate who has been neck and neck with another undeclared potential candidate. Fred Thompson and Newt have both been running 3rd and 4th in the GOP presidential candidate polls despite the fact that they have not declared. Fred is seen by many as the "Reagan" candidate, but probably because they have both been in movies. Fred has quite a bit of support from people who like his attitude, even if they don't know a lot about where he stands and what he would accomplish. He did a great job of making Michael Moore look like a buffoon and has had much to say about things like taxes, security, and immigration. All of this added to his popularity means that he could probably beat Hillary if she ran with Obama as her running mate in the showdown.

So this begs the question, does Newt step aside if Fred declares, say June 12 on the Tonight Show? If Fred runs, many think he will win. The thought is that he fills the gaps left by the current field, and he doesn't have the Newt baggage. Newt wants to run, he wants to be the President of the United States. He wants to prevent another Clinton administration, but he wants to be in the White House for more than that. He has great ideas and can do some good for the country. But can he beat Fred? If Fred keeps this popularity running, and announces soon, he may be unstoppable.

There are issues with the current field. Rudy, the current front runner, won't tell us his real thoughts on abortion. He has the best leadership, but won't get the religious voters. McCain hasn't figured out that conservatives are opposed to amnesty. Romney could be the come-from-behind-to-win guy, and if he wins the primaries, has the potential to steal votes from the democratic candidates. But many don't trust him on abortion, and Baptists think Mormonism is a cult. The other candidates just aren't popular enough. Some of them have good messages, they simply haven't expressed them the way American's like to hear them expressed.

Beating the democrats may be more necessary now than ever before. The Democratic Party has no idea that we are at war. The Republican Party has sold out on too many issues and looks more corrupt every day. There are terrorists looking to sneak nukes across wide open borders. The Republican sell-out handed Congress to the likes of Pelosi, Reid, and Murtha. It could hand the White House to Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. Our country cannot afford to let this happen. We are at war regardless of our inability to accept it and a democratic President will back down in the War on Terror.

This leaves a great opportunity for someone who is very popular, and very conservative, to jump in and take the primaries. Newt and Fred are both waiting for conservatives to get tired of the flip-flops and bad answers in the debates. But I don’t think that Newt can beat Fred, and I think Newt knows it. If Fred announces, Newt may wait it out to see what happens and possibly run the next time around.

I do have an alternative though. What do you think of Thompson/Gingrich 2008?

Sold to the Highest Bidder!! Mexico

In case you haven't yet seen it, here are some links to the all new United States of Mexico.

Here is Malkin with some links and commentary from National Review and NumbersUSA. "It's here: The Bush-Kennedy amnestyReport: Potential cost = $2.5 trillionUpdated with GOP reax"

Brietbart gives some of the details of the sale.

Senator DeMint calls it what it is. "But the little we do know about the bill is troubling. According to reports, the bill contains a new 'Z Visa' that allows those who entered our country illegally to stay here permanently without ever returning home. This rewards people who broke the law with permanent legal status, and puts them ahead of millions of law-abiding immigrants waiting to come to America. I don't care how you try to spin it, this is amnesty."

And here is Mitt, who won some points from me today. "I strongly oppose today's bill going through the Senate. It is the wrong approach. Any legislation that allows illegal immigrants to stay in the country indefinitely, as the new 'Z-Visa' does, is a form of amnesty. That is unfair to the millions of people who have applied to legally immigrate to the U.S. Today's Senate agreement falls short of the actions needed to both solve our country's illegal immigration problem and also strengthen our legal immigration system. Border security and a reliable employment verification system must be our first priority."

Rep. Steve King: "Each one of these Senators should wear a scarlet letter 'A' for amnesty." Thank you Mr. King.

I also found a good post at digg from poster ritad. Does anyone see the irony that we lost 2 pretty good Kennedy boys, now we are left with fat old windbag brother Teddy, who along with El president Bush, and the rest of the scum bags on both the left and the right have just sold our country down the river by voting to reward bad behavior by illegal immigrants with amnesty. We will now for all intents and purposes be a one party country as the stupid Republicans cannot see the fact that all these new illegal citizens will most assuredly vote democratic, and since they will be the majority now, shows the republicans have just effectively shot their own balls off and don't even realize it, oh well if they are that stupendously ignorant, they don't deserve to have a party anyway. I have one question for anyone out here who might be able to answer it, why in the world do we feel we owe amnesty to people invading our country, disrespecting our laws and our sovereignty, the way they are doing? I am sorry, I just don't get it and will never will, if the house reps, are unable to squelch this bill, our country is doomed. Gone our beautiful country, trashed as Mexico is, wonder when there are not enough original Americans left to pay for welfare, food stamps, medicaid and whatever other entitlements these people feel they should be entitled to, what will they do then? Will they "migrate" on up to Canada? God, we could be so lucky! Our, we might just join Iraq, and have our own little civil war, due to the fact that most of our American citizens are strongly against this amnesty!

And let us not forget who it is we are letting into our country.
U.S. soccer team faces chants of 'Osama'
Illegal Immigration And Terrorism

Bush's Approval Rating at 33%, Congress 29%

For the past several months we have listened to the breathless reports of the news media of the President’s low approval ratings. Bush’s numbers as of Tuesday of this week are at a dismal 33% according to a recent Gallup poll. His numbers have hovered between the 30% to 40% range for the past year or so. Bush’s problem is obvious, the war in Iraq. One thing missing from the news reports about Bush’s approval numbers is the approval rating of the Congress.

In the same Gallup poll, the Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi run Congress have lower approval numbers than the President does. A staggering 29% of Americans believe that Congress is doing a good job. We have to look at the numbers a little differently than we look at the President’s. Control of both houses of Congress was handed over to the Democrats in January of this year. In January the numbers jumped from 21% before the takeover to 35% after Nancy Pelosi became the first woman Speaker of the House. In the four months that the Democrats have run the legislative branch of our government, the independent and Democratic voters have lost faith in the ability of the Democrats to get the job done.

I believe that many in the Democratic party are upset that their leaders have not ended all funding for the war, and they have not brought impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush. The independent voters are upset because they voted for a change in Washington, and they see that the Democrats are not fulfilling their promises of fiscal responsibility.

In the four months since the changeover, what major legislation has been passed? What has been accomplished? They passed a supplemental war funding bill that was laden with pork and a timetable for surrender in Iraq. They knew that the bill would never be signed by the President, but they passed it anyway to appease their far left wing supporters.

This week the House was working on another supplemental funding bill, also loaded with pork and a surrender date, and Speaker Pelosi made speeches about needing to work on a bipartisan resolution to the stalemate. I have noticed that whenever any politician speaks of bipartisanship, they really mean that the opposition needs to agree with all of my points. The Senate rejected their version of the bill with bipartisan support against the bill. I guess that isn’t the type of bipartisanship the Ms. Pelosi and Harry Reid were looking for.

The Congress and the administration were able to work on a bipartisan bill this week. The new and improved immigration bill that both the Congress and the administration worked on all week does have bipartisan support, but only when it comes to the politicians. Illegal immigration is one issue that the majority of the voting public agrees on. Most Americans want to see something significant done about the illegal immigration problem, but both political parties want some form of amnesty and are afraid to do anything about securing our borders.
I believe that both Congress and the administration would see a significant jump in their numbers if they stopped patronizing to a perceived voting block of people and actually accomplished something on illegal immigration and securing our borders. The Congress would see a change in their numbers if they stopped their sophomoric attempts at ending the war and just passed something definitive. If they believe that we have lost the war, as Harry Reid said a few weeks ago, then they should pull all funding for the war and take an actual stand for something. Congressmen are voted into office to do what is best for their constituents and for the country. I believe it would be the wrong thing to do, but if it is what they believe is best than go ahead and do it.

I'm Sure This Will Work Just Fine

From FoxNews

WASHINGTON — Republicans and Democrats were nearing a deal Tuesday on a sweeping immigration overhaul that would give millions of illegal immigrants a chance at legal status but strictly limit future arrivals from staying in the U.S.

The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a probationary "Z visa" and — after paying fees and fines of up to $5,000 and returning to their home countries — ultimately try for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. The process couldn't begin until border security improvements and a high-tech worker identification program were completed.

Angry editors note.

Oh sure, this will work. We will just tell the people who are already here illegally to go home and come back later. I'm sure that they will jump right in, pay all their fines, and go back to Mexico for 8 years.

This is what we call "Legislation for legislation's sake"

Congress has no right discussing immigration reform until AFTER they properly secure the border and complete the process of removing as many illegal aliens as possible.

The end of the article quotes Trent Lott as saying we need immigration reform, but he doesn't want to pass a bad bill. Hey Trent, how about Congressional reform instead? You didn't learn anything last year when the angry Republicans decided not to show up and vote? Secure the border. Stop letting illegals and terrorists into our country.

Illegal Immigration And Terrorism

On Monday, six men were arrested by Federal officers for plotting to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey and slaughter as many soldiers as possible. Law enforcement was tipped off in January of last year when the men took a videotape of themselves in training for a Jihadist attack to a local Circuit City to have it transferred onto a DVD. The store employee notified the police who in turn notified the FBI. The men were then put under surveillance and watched until the arrest early this week.

Three of the six men were in the United States illegally. Two of the men had permanent residency status, and the final man was a citizen. Agron Abdullahu was brought to the U.S. as a refugee from Kosovo in 1999. In just 8 years Abdullahu has gone from refugee that was saved from certain death in his homeland, to Jihad seeking terrorist.

What should be a wake up call to all members of Congress, and the administration, is that three of these terrorists have no record of legal entry into our country. The illegal immigration debate has taken a new turn and can no longer be ignored. Yes, there are millions of illegal immigrants in our country that have come here to work and live peaceful lives. There are others that have come to wreak havoc and kill as many of us as they possibly can.

There are an increasing number of “sanctuary” cities throughout our country, where illegal immigrants are not reported by law enforcement for traffic violations and other minor offenses. In some states the Governors and legislatures have passed or are considering laws that allow illegal immigrants to obtain legal drivers licenses. Maryland has even gone as far to grant illegal immigrants residency status for university admission. These “safe havens” for illegal immigrants do not just attract the peaceful, hard working people; they undoubtedly attract those like the six arrested Monday.

I find it appalling that “well-intentioned” politicians overlook the overwhelming threat against our country in order to placate to a voting block of people. This is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue. This is a homeland security issue. Both Republicans and Democrats have their fair share of the blame on this issue. Both sides love the rhetoric of protecting the masses from the terrorists, but neither side has done nearly enough on illegal immigration.

Will this be a wakeup call for Congress and the administration to do more to protect our borders? Will the proponents of open borders continue to preach to us tolerance and multiculturalism? We have laws concerning immigration and they need to be enforced. We need to force our local and state governments to enforce immigration laws. We need to hold our Congressman and the administration responsible for not protecting our borders properly. The administration needs to know that the American people want the illegal immigration criminals punished instead of the border patrol agents guarding our borders.

How Do We End Illegal Immigration?

By John DeJong

In the past few decades, our country has been besieged by a plethora of immigrants entering the United States under false pretense and without legal merit. These are what we refer to as illegal immigrants or aliens. Now even as you read the words, illegal immigrants, you doubtlessly think of Mexicans, right. Yet what I am referring to is ALL illegal immigrants and not just those flooding in from Central and South America. No, I am writing of ALL those who are coming in from countries all over the world.

Though billions of immigration enforcement dollars work to some degree we still cannot fully stop this stampede. Nor will we ever be able to fully block those who are intent upon entrance. There is just not enough manpower or money to cover every last inch of bordering land, air and sea. Safety in numbers is as true a statement today as the day it was first coined. So instead of trying to catch all of the foxes that are trying to get into the henhouse, why not remove the chickens? Now let me explain how we can completely stop the foxes or in this case, illegal immigration.

In concert with President Bush, all illegal immigrants must leave the United States within ninety days. This is where the President and I begin to differ on immigration. I submit that we will not expend another dime on hunting down illegal aliens after that ninety-day period. That is because after ninety days the enforcement of illegal immigrants will be turned over to the investigation of American employers who use illegal immigrants. In short, we will begin to act upon and enforce the employment laws that are already in place.

After the ninety-day period, any employer who is found to have illegal immigrants in their employ will be fined $10,000 per illegal and placed on probation for two years for each illegal found. They should not be incarcerated on the first offense. However, if they are caught employing an illegal a second time then the penalty will be grave. The second offense will result in a fine of $100,000 for each illegal in their employment and five years in prison with no parole. We must get serious if we are to stop illegal immigration.

Furthermore, their business and assets will be sold and the money generated from the sale will be used as an offset to enforcement costs. Additionally, there will be no bail allowed for their second offense of this crime. Therefore, if you are arrested for a second offense you had better be sure you have your harmonica with you because you will be staying in jail for quite some time.

Now what happens during the voluntary ninety-day relocation period? In order to insure that the illegal immigrants head back to where they came from we will need to remove all of the benefits that have been bestowed upon those who have violated our immigration laws. First, we act in accordance with the 14th Amendment when applying the law of citizenship. Despite what the supporters of illegal immigration claim, this Amendment should not allow for automatic citizenship for babies born here from illegal immigrants of foreign nations. So first off, we reclassify all illegal babies born on American soil to the status of their parents natural country of origin.

The illegal immigrants will no longer be allowed to send their children into our public schools. Nor will they be eligible for any government entitlements or other social programs. If they appear at any hospital or clinic with injuries or illness then they can be treated only after immigration officers have arrived to take them into custody for the purpose of deportation. The lone exception here would be life-threatening issues, which require immediate treatment. Yet the immigration authorities still must be notified even before this emergency treatment commences. Once all these measures are enacted, the illegal immigrants will depart on their own. If not, they will eventually be found anyway.

Once the illegal immigrants are back in their countries they can apply for entrance into the United States by way of work permits. They must list their experience and skills and other pertinent information. They must have some working knowledge and basic 6th grade understanding of the spoken and written English language. All schools will be directed toward teaching legal immigrant children the English language. There will be no more bi-lingual signs, voice mails or any other instruction in foreign languages because the English language will become the official language of the United States.

In order to enter the USA they and their dependents will submit to fingerprinting and photo identification and they will have to be matched or sponsored with an employer certified by the immigration services. They will also be required to report to Immigration Services on a monthly basis to ensure that they have not relocated out of state without authorization. Any felony conviction or repeated misdemeanor offenses of an illegal immigrant will result in deportation without the possibility of ever returning to the USA.

Those employers who wish to employ legal immigrants will have to be certified by the United States Immigration Services. They will have to list the employee skills they need and the amount of people wanted. They will have to list whether the employment is of a permanent or temporary nature. The most important aspect of employing immigrants will be that the employers will be responsible for providing an equal rate of starting pay and benefits as those of their employees who are American citizens. That will prevent the slave labor or poor wages that are currently employed by many in this country.

The certified employers will receive a listing of immigrant employment applicants so that they can choose whom they want to work for them. They will be required to submit quarterly evaluation reports to Immigration Services about their immigrant employees as well as any problems or incidences of a disciplinary nature. In addition, all immigrant employees will only receive hourly wages/overtime and never a salaried position as long as their status is alien. Once they become United States citizens then their employment future will be maintained under the laws and jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Labor just as every other natural citizen.

Finally, each employer of three or more legal immigrants will help them choose one worker as an immigrant labor representative for the other workers. This labor rep will be responsible for submitting quarterly reports to the Immigration Service along with the employer report forms. He or she will also act as a liaison between management and the other immigrant workers.

If we are truly dedicated to securing and maintaining the American way, then we absolutely must get serious about it. We have to make certain that immigrants are fully deterred from entering this country without first being certified and authorized.

John DeJong is the lead creative designer for NotMeUSA. He has been writing humorous advertisements for over twenty-five years. All of the funny t-shirts, prescription pill bottles, and gag spray bottles were created by him. You can view these by visiting NotMeUSA.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=John_DeJong