I am linking the released immigration bill. It is unreadable. You know this is not going to be read by the people who are going to vote on it. Try some for yourselves. This is where we have been brought by the people who we trusted to lead us. Read this and leave a comment about the wisdom and courage and loyalty of George Bush to the people that trusted him.
Why do the political elites think we are so stupid? Are we?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor Trish,
ReplyDelete"Toby Dodge, an expert on Iraq at Queen Mary, University of London, has just come back from a month spent in Iraq, largely in the Green Zone. He thinks the Americans are unlikely to pull out of Iraq fully until the end of the next presidency at the earliest, and so the new embassy will serve its purpose for several years to come.
"A fortress-style embassy, with a huge staff, will remain in Baghdad until helicopters come to airlift the last man and woman from the roof," he said, adding his own advice to the architects of the building: "Include a large roof."
The Whole F-ing Story? [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
ReplyDeletePowerline has more has more on the McCain-Cornyn incident.
As the clock moved closer to 1:30 p.m., Senator McCain suddenly lost it. "This is chickenshit," he told Senator Cornyn. "I think it would expedite things if you would just leave the room, Senator, so we can get along with finishing this up." Senator Cornyn responded: "Wait a minute. We’ve been meeting for three months on this in good faith, and now you parachute in here this morning and tell me to leave? I think you’re out of line."
Senator McCain responded: "F*** you! I know what is going on here.
I know more about immigration than anybody in this room!”
Other Senators moved in to calm things down, and the talks went on. Senator Cornyn’s provision was not included. At 1:30 p.m. sharp, the conferees (not including Senators Cornyn or Menendez and a few other negotiators) were in the press gallery, congratulating each other. Senator Kennedy recognized Senator McCain early to make his televised comments, then Senator McCain departed before the press conference was over for a flight to New York City. Later that afternoon, he missed yet another Senate vote -– this one on the Democrats' $2.9 trillion budget plan, an outline for the largest tax increase in U.S. history.
So Far, this is still my favorite Newsbyte on Immigration:
ReplyDelete---
Kennedy's Bill had them paying back taxes, Bush insisted on taking that out, as it would be too hard to figure.
No problem figuring credit for Social Security Bennies:
*JUST GIVE THEM AWAY!*
---
Why Doesn't This Surprise Me - Mark Krikorian
"Bush removes provision requiring back taxes from illegal immigrants"
Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., who heads the House immigration reform caucus, said ``the worst thing you can do if you try to control illegal immigration is reward 12 to 20 million illegal aliens with citizenship and permanent residency.''
ReplyDeleteYet he added, ``I think it passes if big business is able to basically put the pressure on and say, `We give you Republicans a lot of money. We want you to deliver us a cheap vote.''
Mitch McConnell
Background checks.
ReplyDeleteSo are we able to conduct background checks in the home country? I don't see anything addressing that.
So Business gets cheap labor to exploit, and we pay the Bills, given that each illegal now costs 30k/year and pays 10k taxes.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, it is not just money poured down a Rathole, but money for the breeding grounds of more voters for socialism, incentives for ever increasing dependecy on Government.
Compassionate George, Growing Government to Meet Growing "Needs."
22 reasons to leave your lover. Bad Stuff in the Bill
ReplyDeleteI'm looking for something to love in the bill.
Great link, Bobal.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you'll love my VISA Card idea!
---
While we're giving them Z Visas, why don't we give them free Z VISA Cards?
How'd you end up at Flares just when I got there for the first time in 5 months?
ReplyDeleteAre you a regular there?
Wow! A Greensburg Native.
ReplyDeleteWe're in Kansas Again, Dorothy!
posted by MeaninglessHotAir
No, not at all, just playing the propagandist these days.
ReplyDeleteer, I mean, just playing the truth telling sentinel..
ReplyDeleteViva Business! Viva La Raza!
ReplyDeleteBusiness executives have been working closely with Hispanic groups, like the National Council of La Raza, in seeking a comprehensive immigration bill.
These alliances were on display last week at a dinner celebrating the 25th anniversary of the National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigrant advocacy group.
Highly Educated, Behaving Like a Moron.
ReplyDeleteMe Stalin!
"Anyway, I was one of those ready to believe the worst of the bill, but it really doesn't look that bad to me now that I am beginning to get some feel for it. "
ReplyDelete---
And *I* have a Bridge in Brooklyn, that just happens to be for sale.
How difficult is it for a State to break from the Union?
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, the reluctance of Washington to be seen to enforce its own borders is very perplexing. From the "Washington sniper" to 9/11, there has been for a generation a clear nationalsecurity component to the illegal immigration issue.
ReplyDeleteTo present it only as a matter of "the jobs Americans won't do" is lazily reductive. The economists may see the vast human tide as an army of much-needed hotel maids and farm workers and nurses and plumbers, but to assume that everyone on the planet sees themselves as primarily an economic entity is complacent and (post-September 11th) obtusely deluded.
The political class' urge to capitulate on the integrity of the national border sends as important a message to the world about American will as their urge to capitulate on Iraq.
America, Z Beautiful
Ask Alaska.
ReplyDeleteMat, it's difficult. The south tried it, you know. We're so integrated financially, legally and politically now, it isn't going to happen. Oddly enough, I think there are some grey areas legally speaking but I don't know enough about. Practically, practically no chance.
ReplyDeleteMat,
ReplyDeleteIt has been decreed that NO State can break from the Teacher's Union!
It's odd though, we aren't opposed to seeing many other entities break up, and often further the purpose.
ReplyDeleteNo state can opt out of the Super Bowl.
ReplyDeleteIf the overwhelming public votes out, what can the Federals do?
ReplyDeleteSend in the army.
ReplyDeleteThe Moscow shooter's wife or girlfriend worked at the Sheriff's department as a dispatcher. Domestic. Guess he was trying to dispatch her.
No one really wants out, Mat, not even a renegade like me. Least, that's the way I perceive things. The Hawaiian natives may come closest. Doug would know.
ReplyDeleteIf citizens refuse to pay the Federal Tax, the State stops the transfer of payments, what can the Army do?
ReplyDeleteBob,
ReplyDeleteThis kind of blackmail politics worked great for Quebec. I'm not saying they weren't serious, I'm saying they got what they wanted.
Mat, we can't get the wheat farmers organized to the point of working together. How can we get millions of citizens to agree to not pay taxes and take the risks involved in that?
ReplyDeleteThe Canadians I have talked to say that if Quebec really voted to opt out, that's it as far as they are concerned. Bye, bye.
The Alaskan Independence Party's goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:
ReplyDelete1) Remain a Territory.
2) Become a separate and Independent Nation.
3) Accept Commonwealth status.
4) Become a State.
Alaskan Independence Party
Nobody really wants out, and nobody but a few crazies really wants another civil war. Most of us like to drink beer, and watch tv.
ReplyDeleteI'm ignorant about the history of Alaska, with no excuse. You folks could become part of Russia, maybe, Sam?
The army would fight for Alaska, I'd think, the legalities be damned. It's too important.
I don't know much about it either other than that Alaskan Independence Party is the 3rd largest party in the state and that their governor was making a big push for it back in the early 80's. I think he was part of that party. That party may have been called the secessionist party back then. Not sure.
ReplyDeleteI kind of remotely remember that. You're not from Alaska then. I've never been there, another thing I am ashamed to say. Still planning on making the trip though.
ReplyDeleteBob,
ReplyDeleteThis mass infiltration is an issue that can get people organized. The Federals will have to capitulate long before any possibility of armed hostilities.
"How difficult is it for a State to break from the Union?"
ReplyDeleteLincoln set quite a precedent.
"Oddly enough, I think there are some grey areas legally speaking but I don't know enough about. Practically, practically no chance."
ReplyDeleteLegally, and setting aside the moral issue of slavery, I've come around to the view that the Southern states had the right to secede. If it was a voluntary union to begin with, it seems hard to say that continued association shouldn't be.
Course, that argument would give Federalists some leverage, because if states didn't like the national government's doings, they could implicitly threaten secession. But Lincoln set quite a precedent (and Jackson when South Carolina was threatening to do so in the 1830s) and noone's even publicly debated it since, sofar as I know. It's why Lincoln, a Republican who saved the Union, still has an ambivalent reputation with Federalists.
If you ask Doug, Hawaii also might have an "independence party".
ReplyDeleteNo, Bob. From Kirkland. Parents grew up in Spokane.
ReplyDeleteFirst thing the Feds would probably say about Alaska is, we bought it fair and square from Russia, it's ours.
ReplyDeleteI think you are right, Cutler. There's a grey area there. They didn't seem to be signing onto a permanent no outs marriage arrangement is the way I understand it, but there are counter arguments too I am sure. It's uncertain, it seems.
But with millions upon millions of people having property in so many different states all around, and industry so entwined, and the constitution quaranteeing all these rights to this and that these days, and relatives all over, as a practical matter I don't see how you'd even begin.
Yes, Sam I remember that now. WSU. You were going to ask your mom about the crapper:)
Mat, they'd cut off the welfare payments, and farm subsidies, and that would do it:)
ReplyDeleteAn Arabic Public School
ReplyDeleteA Madrassa Grows In Brooklyn
By DANIEL PIPES
Come September, an Arabic-language public secondary school is slated to open its doors in Brooklyn. The New York City Department of Education says the Khalil Gibran International Academy, serving grades six through 12, will boast a "multicultural...
Yes, I asked her. She doesn't know. She said it must have been a different time frame. I think she must have been there in '64/'65.
ReplyDeleteCutler,
ReplyDeleteAlaska decided it might be a good idea to go it alone about the time it's Gusher of Black Gold was ready to market.
Unless this year produces a Bumper Crop of Coconuts, I think Hawaii's chances are slim.
Yeah, that's right, you got it Doug, now I remember, that was it.
ReplyDeleteMat, you got to realize, almost everybody here sucks on unca Sam's tit, one way or another.
Hah, well, wasn't there recent legislation that was supposed to create some sort of dual legislature? One which seperated indigenous ethnic Hawaiins and invaders (jk) like you?
ReplyDeleteThere's also been real minor talk about some of the Western Canadian provinces (oil rich ones like Alberta) seceding, supposedly cause some people are tired of subsidizing Quebec and Ontario.
You know, this is another one of those 'God bless the Internet' moments.
ReplyDeleteReal-time reactions, immediate access to documents for vast amounts of people. Fantastic.
Michelle Speaks at Loyola
ReplyDeleteThe Feds seem to think it ok for for Albanians to secede. They are fine with Indian tribes. The arrogance of GWB not enforcing federal law so that foreigners could come in by millions and now they will change the laws that they did not enforce at the expense of those who lived under the law is stunning.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile look at what is going on in Lebanon. Future of Middle East?
ReplyDelete50 killed in Lebanon clashes
ReplyDeleteMonday, 21 May, 2007 @ 3:06 AM
By Nazih Siddiq
Nahr Al-Bared, Lebanon - Lebanese troops battled Sunni Islamist militants based in a Palestinian refugee camp on Sunday and 50 people were killed in Lebanon's bloodiest internal feuding since a 1975-90 civil war.
Twenty-five soldiers and 15 militants died in fighting which erupted before dawn at Nahr al-Bared camp and the nearby Sunni Muslim city of Tripoli, in north Lebanon. Forty soldiers were wounded.
A cabinet minister said the fighting with Fatah al-Islam, which the government says is backed by Syria, seemed timed to try to derail U.N. moves to set up an international court to try those suspected of carrying out political killings in Lebanon.
Via Deuce's link
South Carolina laid out a very cogent ,well constructed document on why they were leaving the Union.
ReplyDeleteIt reads very much like our Declaration of Independence.
600,000+ dead and wounded later it didn't matter much what the document said or how cogent a case it made for the abolistionist North to have broken the original compact made that originally formed this nation.
And it was exactly that. This nation would have never come into being had it not been for concessions made to the South to bring them to the table. Four score and seven years later the abolistionists had pushed Congress far enough in the direction of breaking the original compact that South Carolina said enough, we're outta here.
It is a very good read.
South Carolina Secession Declaration
Read My Flips
ReplyDeleteGWB on Back Taxes.
Mickey Kaus
No Back Taxes! ... If You're an Illegal Immigrant.
President Bush in an address from the Oval Office a year ago:
I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law, to pay their taxes, to learn English, and to work in a job for a number of years.
People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship ... [E.A.]
Forget that part about the taxes.
The Bush administration actually asked that the provision requiring payment of back taxes be dropped from the bill, and it was taken out.
Kennedy had it in! ...
Try that "difficult and time consuming" excuse out on the IRS if you're a U.S. citizen and see how far it gets you.
Reading The Fine Print, Part 8: Humbug And Common Sense
ReplyDeleteHugh Hewitt
Title VII is short, a sort of encore of common sense and humbug. The common sense is the recognition in Sec. 701 that aliens currently serving in the military don't have to get fingerprinted again.
But the rest is pretty much humbug.
There's a declaration of English as "the common language of the United States," followed by the announcment that this status does not "diminish or expand any existing rights under the laws of the United States relative to the services or materials provided by the Government of the United States in any language other than English."
In other words, a no-effect bit of theater.
There's a provision of illegal aliens over the age of 75 and some additional funding for the "Office of Citizenship and Integration," followed by the high point of absurdity in the draft law, the establishment of the "Citizenship and Integration Councils" which looks very much like a Saturdnay Night Live skit.
Money is to be made available "to states and municipalities for effective integration of immigrants into American society through the creation of New Americans Integrations (sic) Councils.
I nominate Mickey Kaus to the California council.
Here we are at the end of the bill and there is in fact no language whatsoever pushing the border fence forward "notwithstanding any other law."
Mitch McConnell needs to hear from us!
ReplyDeleteMr. McConnell repeatedly ducked the central question, posed to him four times by show host George Stephanopoulos, refusing to say whether he thought the bill was an amnesty.
The Republican leader's reluctance to take a stance might be the product of a sharply divided Senate Republican Conference.
Seven Republicans, including the party's chairman, Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida, Mr. Chambliss and Mr. Kyl, the Senate Republican Conference chairman, were at the press conference announcing the bill. But its most vehement opponents are also Republicans, including Sens. Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, who voted for the 1986 amnesty and says he won't make that mistake again.
Mr. McConnell did vote for last year's bill and has said he thinks this bill is better.
I have mentioned fifth columnists more than a few times on this blog.
ReplyDeleteThey do exist.
Here is a brilliant piece laying it all out. Next time your fingertips touch the keyboard filter some of these example through you thoughts.
Such is the mixed bag of fifth column leftists whose pathological hatred for the United States inspires them not only to promote America’s defeat at the hands of the Islamo-fascists, but to do so from the media platforms of enemy camp. These are not critics who wish to see America find a better way to win the war and secure the peace. Rather, hatred towards their country and countrymen inspires in them a wish to see both suffer unconditional, total defeat.
Platforms of the Enemy
ZionistYoungster said...
ReplyDeleteOn the altar of civility and the UN-devised "rules of engagement", which were conceived by people totally oblivious to what we're facing today, we're sacrificing both our people and our culture, with an ever steepening price.
These days I just feel like screaming, "To hell with all this civility! To hell with all those suicide pacts chaining us! And to hell with that thought, that erroneous thought, born of pure chronological snobbery, that our age is more civilized, and that the things we read about in the histories are behind us!" Because our enemy is such that raise their own children to combat, often to the sacrifice of their very lives.
Enough of this, this defeatocratic line,
"Beware, when fighting monsters, lest you become a monster yourself".
This is the granddaddy of all suicide pacts.
From Joe Leiberman speech
ReplyDeleteAssuming a more serious demeanor and quoting President Ronald Reagan, Lieberman’s message to the audience was “Now is the time for choosing.” He continued: “If we stand united through the months ahead, if we stand firm against the terrorists who want to drive us to retreat, the war in Iraq can be won and the lives of millions of people can be saved.” “But if we surrender to the barbarism of suicide bombers and abandon the heart of the Middle East to fanatics and killers, to Al Qaeda and Iran, then all that our men and women in uniform have fought and died for will be lost, and we will be left a much less secure and free nation.” He added, “That is the choice we in Washington will make this summer and this fall. It is a choice not just about our foreign policy, our national security and our interests in the Middle East, it is about what our political leaders in both parties are prepared to stand for. It is about our very soul as a nation. It is about who we are, and who we want to be.”
No Surrender
Will the planning to withdraw from Iraq be better than the plan to secure the US borders? How would we get out? When we head for the door, the Iraqi Army will not be able to strip their uniforms off fast enough. They will steal military vehicles or taxis or Mercedes and they will be barrel assing to the nearest border. Those caught will have to die or make their bones and attack the departing Americans. The Iraqi police department will be worse.
ReplyDeleteAny and every Iraqi that assisted the US will be at severe risk. Someone better have a plan to prevent this. How do you prevent it? If you think it through, the only answer would be to support some strongman. We have no other practical choice. Any exit under present conditions is a calamity. There is no way out of this thing.
Back OT and this is important:
ReplyDeleteImmigration debacle
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
May 21, 2007
The bipartisan immigration "reform" legislation pushed by Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and Jon Kyl and others, applauded by Michael Chertoff, the secretary of Homeland Security, and Carlos Gutierrez, the secretary of Commerce, is a disaster in the making. That is not so slowly becoming abundantly clear.
It's a disaster for national security, for keeping Islamist jihadists out of the country, for exploding the costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, for preserving the rule of law, and for that quaint principle called national sovereignty. From the details that have leaked out thus far, the legislation, which provides amnesty for nearly all of the 12 million (or maybe even 20 million) illegal aliens already here, would swell the size of the welfare state in a way we haven't seen since Lyndon Johnson imposed his Great Society on us four decades ago. Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican who is likely to lead the fight to save the nation from this disaster, and Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation will reveal at a press conference this morning the details of just how expensive it will be. We're talking trillions of dollars -- that's not millions or even billions -- over the next several decades.
Senate floor debate on the bill begins today, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid clearly wants to force it through before Memorial Day, before senators and everyone else can become familiar with even a fraction of what is in this massive bill, which could run to 800 pages. It was still being written over the weekend. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who is said to lean in favor of the bill, yesterday said that at least two weeks would be required for a serious Senate debate on such a complex piece of legislation. We hope he means it when he says "serious debate." To win the support of conservatives who opposed last year's immigration bill, the administration agreed that provisions enabling illegals to remain here could only become effective after new border-control measures are in place.
These include the hiring, training and deployment of 5,000 to 6,000 additional Border Patrol agents, increasing the total to approximately 18,000 agents. (Assuming there are 12 million illegals here, this amounts to 2,000 of them getting amnesty for every new Border Patrol agent hired to keep illegals out).
The legislation calls for erecting 370 miles of additional fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border. To put that number in perspective, in October, the Senate passed legislation sponsored by Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican, calling for 854 miles of fencing. Mr. Hunter protests that the Senate bill in effect "cuts my fence in half." (Actually, it's closer to 55 percent.) That assumes of course, that Congress actually keeps its word and appropriates money for the fence. Counting on Congress is always a very big "if." Another "trigger" requires that the Department of Homeland Security -- not a model of bureaucratic efficiency -- develop and implement by the end of next year a system to enable employers to quickly verify that job applicants are in the country legally. In exchange for such very modest achievements, the administration and the Senate propose to make enormous and in some cases unacceptable concessions to illegal aliens and their political patrons. Here are some of them:
m Amnesty, document fraud and terrorism: There is good reason to be skeptical of the notion that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) -- the Homeland Security bureaucracy that will be charged with verifying whether tens of millions of illegals are terrorists and/or criminals, and therefore ineligible to receive amnesty -- is up to the job. Over the past four years, the ineptitude of the immigration services bureaucracy has been severely criticized by the Office of Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office and other investigators. This, according to Michael Cutler, who spent more than 25 years as an immigration agent, would "provide millions of illegal aliens who have violated our nation's borders" with "official identity documents that would enable terrorists to embed themselves in communities around our country as they await instructions to launch the next terrorist attack against against our nation and the people who live in the United States." Mr. Cutler says the Senate bill should be named the "Terrorist Assistance and Facilitation Act of 2007."
m Staggering increases in federal, state and local spending, with attendant pressure for tax increases. Mr. Rector of the Heritage Foundation says one major effect of the Senate amnesty bill will be to make approximately 9 million additional persons -- many of them low-skilled immigrants -- legal permanent residents of the United States who could lawfully benefit from a variety of social programs, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income and public housing. Over the course of their lifetimes, these people will utilize $2.5 trillion more in government services than they will pay in taxes. American welfare and social services were designed for poor Americans; as a result of amnesty legislation, this legislation would expand the American welfare state to include a significant portion of the population of Mexico. Instead of going home to Mexico at the end of their working years, these elderly beneficiaries of amnesty would remain in this country "and collect public funds for the rest of their lives," Mr. Rector says.
m The Senate immigration bill includes legislation called the DREAM act, legislation subsidizing college education for illegal aliens. And what a dream it is.
m Illegal aliens who worked using fraudulently obtained Social Security numbers will be able to collect Social Security Disability Insurance.
The Bush administration deludes itself if it believes that the measure can be improved during Senate debate. Right now, the toughest criticism of the bill is coming from labor unions who argue that the amnesty/guest-worker provisions are too strict, and from senators like Mel Martinez of Florida, a Republican who talks of waiving the much-ballyhooed $5,000 fine illegals are meant to pay. If the administration wants to preserve what's left of its credibility on immigration, it would spare us Mr. Chertoff's hyperbolic rhetoric that critics of the administration regard anything short of capital punishment to be "amnesty." The only "capital punishment" coming is what's likely to happen to the careers of those determined to inflict this disaster on us.
BARKEEP!
ReplyDeleteAnybody here ever heard of hyperLINKS?
The arrogance of power.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible of the "Immigration" Issue
ReplyDeleteTwo almost human faces on the cover of human events.
see:
ReplyDeleteIt's blue with a line underneath.
With Liberty and Amnesty for All
ReplyDeleteOK, show of hands here please of those who believe the Bush, Boehner, McConnell gang will ever oblige any Mexican citizen, under any circumstance, to return home.
The current proposed bill doesn’t provide for the bureaucratic infrastructure to accomplish this.
We can’t keep track of people here on tourist and student visas now.
How on earth are we supposed to run a system that would fine, tax, and do background checks on millions of Mexicans (and others) here illegally while at the same time keeping track of where they are? To the nearest hundred thousand, how many more federal bureaucrats would this require if we were even serious about doing it?
On this one, W once again finds himself aligned with elites rather than with a clear majority of Americans who want the invasion stopped and then reversed. His constituencies on this scam are: big business (motto: mucho trabajo -- poco dinero), Democrats and other liberals/leftists, Hispanics (especially of the registered voter kind), reconquistadores, academe, and the Mexican government.
W is not only dead wrong on the issue, he has of late been adding insult to injury by suggesting that those who oppose his we-don-need-no-stinking-borders policy are a bunch a racist yahoos and xenophobes. This attitude on the part of W and other no-borders advocates can only be accounted for by arrogance and political tone-deafness of operatic dimensions.
Bob,
ReplyDeleteI lived in Philly for 6 wks. Got to know the Pennsylvania countryside well. I'm familiar with the dead and dying towns living off welfare checks. But that doesn't take away from the argument that the Federal government is dysfunctional. It only adds to it. (Sorry for the belated response, it was past me bedtime).
Granting a “path to citizenship” to millions of immigration criminals already here and millions of their relatives back home (who will be allowed to join their illegal alien point men in America under this bill) will do as much to discourage further illegal immigration as granting car thieves a path to ownership would do to discourage future auto theft.
ReplyDeleteSee
ReplyDelete"The Big Lebowski"
yet, Mat?
Working on it, Doug. It's an old film, the torrent is slow.
ReplyDeleteImmigration debacle
ReplyDeleteToday's Editorial
Ingraham thinks it's falling apart because of the volume of calls they are getting.
ReplyDeleteCALL MORE!