GOP Sellout — A senseless giveaway on immigration.

GOP Sellout
A senseless giveaway on immigration.

By Brian Darling

“Sellout.” It may be harsh, but it’s the most accurate and succinct way to sum up how conservatives feel right now about President Bush and Senate Republicans, who have cut a deal that would grant amnesty to the estimated 12 million illegal aliens living in the U.S. — not to mention the parents, spouses, and children of these illegals.

Title VI of a draft copy of the bill breaks down amnesty visas into three categories:

 Z-1 — Illegal aliens present and working in the United States up to Jan. 1, 2007.
 Z-2 — Parents and spouses of illegal aliens qualifying under the Z-1 category.
 Z-3 — Children of illegal aliens qualifying under the Z-1 category.

These “Z Visa” holders can stay in the “Z” status indefinitely, which means they never have to pursue “a pathway to citizenship.” They also would be able to get Social Security numbers and benefit from some welfare programs. Shockingly, there is no cap on the numbers of amnesty recipients in the draft language. The only thing the Z Visa holder can’t do is vote — until, that is, a liberal judge declares this limitation unconstitutional or until a liberal president can railroad through a “technical corrections” bill.

Notwithstanding all you are going to hear to the contrary from President Bush, Sen. John McCain, and their new ideological partner, Sen. Ted Kennedy, Title VI of this bill is amnesty, plain and simple. According to an op-ed by former attorney general Ed Meese that appeared last year in the New York Times discussing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, “the difference is that President Reagan called this what it was: amnesty. Indeed, look up the term ‘amnesty’ in Black’s Law Dictionary, and you’ll find it says, ‘the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already in the country.’” It was amnesty then, and it’s amnesty now.

Why would Republicans negotiate with Ted Kennedy, a senator with impeccable credentials with the far Left of the immigration movement? And why would John McCain imperil his wobbly campaign for the presidency by allying himself with a Kennedy-drafted immigration bill? It simply defies common sense.

Some of these Republicans, I believe, have convinced themselves that they can convince the American people that “triggers,” “tough border enforcement,” and the Y Visa “temporary guest worker program” were concessions from the Left that balance out the amnesty part of the bill. Unfortunately, they’re wrong. And Senator McCain’s prospects to woo conservatives will suffer dearly.

The prospect of amnesty for illegal immigrants and their families outweighs any tough border initiative that may be in the bill, or the get-tough employment-enforcement provisions. All that will matter, if the bill passes, is that President Bush and presidential wannabe John McCain enabled and are responsible for a historic giveaway — for a program that grants amnesty to millions of illegal aliens who are being rewarded for breaking the law.

In the name of bipartisanship, they have given away the farm to Ted Kennedy and the left wing of the Democrat party in the Senate. I can’t imagine any self-respecting conservative in America who would not hold this against McCain, Bush, and any other politician who supports this terrible idea.

Brian Darling is director of U.S. Senate Relations at the Heritage Foundation.

No Amnesty for McCain

No Amnesty for McCain
By W. James Antle III
Published 5/18/2007 12:08:55 AMWith the White House’s blessing, the Senate has reached a deal on immigration. And Sen. John McCain has handed his opponents for the Republican nomination a mighty club to wield against him — if they choose to use it.

As Rudy Giuliani’s lead over the Arizona senator slipped into the single digits in many national polls, McCain assumed a lower profile on the immigration issue. Sen. Sam Brownback went even further, repudiating his support for last year’s Senate bill containing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Now there is a new bill offering such a provision and McCain, like fellow Arizonan Jon Kyl, is on board.

However the rest of the field responds, this much is clear: When Ronald Reagan revived his flagging 1976 presidential campaign by railing against the Panama Canal Treaty, many observers were shocked by the issue’s resonance. Today, no one can be surprised when conservatives speak out against anything that can be construed as amnesty for illegal immigrants.

The reaction to the immigration announcement was swift. Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and perhaps future presidential candidate, denounced it on Sean Hannity’s radio show as “a sellout of every conservative principle.” The Heritage Foundation agreed. Congressman Mike Pence issued a statement calling the bill an amnesty.

While the deal was being picked apart by talk radio and the blogs, John McCain was appearing on television with Ted Kennedy to promote it. Arlen Specter’s presence — and insistence that the Senate isn’t talking about amnesty — doesn’t give McCain much cover with conservatives. Neither does the news that the bill was drafted with the help of liberal groups like the National Council of La Raza.

Is it amnesty? Like past versions of McCain-Kennedy, the bill offers illegal aliens a path to citizenship and creates a new guest-worker program. Supporters argue that the measure only applies to illegals who have passed a background check while paying fines and back taxes. In a new twist, guest workers could only be admitted and unlawful immigrants legalized after certain enforcement provisions have taken effect. And in the long term, the legislation may shift the immigration system’s focus away from family reunification and toward employment skills.

But there are already concerns that the “enforcement triggers” may prove more fungible than advertised. If the Democrats win in 2008, do conservatives trust Hillary’s Department of Homeland Security to certify that the borders are secure? Worse, the bill creates probationary “Z visas” for illegal immigrants present and working in the United States since the beginning of this year as well as their parents, spouses, and children.

The probationary period begins before any of the enforcement triggers are pulled. The visa-holders are eligible to stay in the country indefinitely, possibly undermining the appeal of the path to citizenship. And all this assumes that the country’s existing immigration bureaucracy, with a backlog of 4 million unresolved cases, can properly determine the status of at least 12 million people in a timely manner.

It may be 1986 all over again. After that year’s Immigration Reform and Control Act became law, nearly twice as many people applied as officials expected and over 90 percent were accepted. Today the numbers are even greater. So is the potential for amnesty to occur without the promised enforcement ever materializing.

Mitt Romney was quick to pounce. “I strongly oppose today’s bill going through the Senate,” he said in a statement. “It’s the wrong approach.” All eyes are on Rudy — and the rest of the GOP contenders, all the way down to the bottom tier. McCain has helped give his rivals an opportunity to appeal to disaffected conservatives on a populist issue.

“Life is unfair,” John F. Kennedy observed. However mistaken this deal, McCain is as much a conviction politician on immigration as Tom Tancredo. Giuliani once sued to block welfare and immigration reform laws he believed were too strict with New York City’s illegal aliens. Romney took a position similar in principle to this bill’s language as recently as Tuesday’s South Carolina debate.

But conservative voters will remember the immigration partnership between John McCain and Ted Kennedy. In a Republican primary, that is dangerous company to keep.

Protests target “surrender monkeys” Pelosi and Reid

Move America Forward

Protests target “surrender monkeys” Pelosi and

Reid

By Catherine Moy

Friday, May 18, 2007

Surrender MonkeyProtestors and “surrender monkeys” marched on the offices of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, and Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., on Thursday opposing the Democrats retreat-and-defeat policies in the war against Muslim Jihadists in Iraq and around the world.

The “surrender monkeys” – played by two chimpanzees in San Francisco – wore the uniform of the original surrender monkeys from France: a beret and a waving white flag.

Move America Forward (MAF), the country’s largest pro-troop group, sponsored the “Surrender is Not an Option” protests in three cities: San Francisco, Las Vegas and Carson City, Nev. The protesters included Iraqi veterans, Vietnam veterans, Gold Star parents, Blue Star parents, American patriots and special guests: two chimpanzees and one French monkey dressed as “cheese-eating surrender monkeys.”

Following the protest, 10 people were allowed inside Pelosi’s San Francisco office to discuss the issues with a staff person. The media were prohibited from witnessing the meeting; cameras and recording devices were banned, with no explanation. Guards kept an eye on the rally and strictly controlled entry into Pelosi’s office.

Sen. Reid’s office did not take kindly to the 100-plus protestors at his Carson City office. A handful of people, including a war veteran carrying a flag, went to the office and asked a Reid worker if they could make a formal complaint to the Democratic Senator. The group, led by Eric Odom of www.opposereid.com, asked her if she agreed with Reid. The woman slammed the door in their faces. (Video is at www.MoveAmericaForward.org).

Neither Reid nor his office could be reached for comment on the incident.

MAF chairman Melanie Morgan spoke at the San Francisco event, which drew more than 70 people. Morgan, who is also cohost of the popular Lee Rodgers and Melanie Morgan show on San Francisco’s KSFO, explained the “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” were meant to mock the cut-and-run politicians in Congress.

“Commander-in-Chief Nancy Pelosi and her sidekick Harry Reid personify the retreat-defeat-surrender mentality that is typical of what the Democrat party stands for today, “Morgan said in an earlier interview. “I might lump in Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska in that column.ÊNo matter what party,ÊAmericans do not stand for defeat.”

The chimpanzees in San Francisco were treated with great care at the rally. Their handlers ensured they were safe and content. Jake, one of the chimpanzees, carried a flag that said, “Surrender is not an option.”

The temperature in Las Vegas reached 97 degrees, which drew a complaint to the Humane Society of America, according to the Las Vegas Sun.

“It’s a shame that Move America Forward is exploiting animals to score political points,” Wayne Pacelle, president and chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States, said in a statement to the Sun. “Bringing monkeys into a crowded situation – especially in 97 degree heat – is potentially dangerous for the animals as well as the public.”

It is unclear who complained about Hobo the “surrender monkey’s” performance, which included him energetically riding a scooter. Hobo’s handler ensured that the French monkey was hydrated and comfortable.

MAF spokespeople said Hobo was safe and appeared to enjoy his shtick.

“We treated the animals with love, compassion and respect,” said Joe Wierzbicki, MAF spokesman who was at the Las Vegas rally.

“What’s truly inhumane is how Speaker Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid are cutting and running on our troops, attempting to strip them of funding for training, ammunition and food in the middle of battle,” Morgan said.

The “surrender monkeys” brought a bit of comedic relief to the protestors, many of whom have either served in the Iraq war or have loved ones deployed.

Joseph Williams, a Vacaville resident whose son was killed in the early days of the Iraq war, drove to San Francisco so Pelosi would know that most Gold Star parents want the United States to win the war Ð not leave with our tails between our legs.

“I’m tired of the cheese-eating surrender monkeys led by the Commander-in-Cheese Pelosi,” said Williams, a Vietnam veteran.

Joe Eckstein, a San Francisco resident, showed up “because I love my country.”

Eckstein believes Pelosi is a danger to our country by doing such things as taking trips to Syria while thumbing her nose at President Bush and the State Department.

“I’ve known she was dangerous since the time I saw her march in a parade with child molesters, NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association),” Eckstein said. “We call her NAMBLA Nancy.”

Christine Sargent took time off work to attend the San Francisco protest.

“I’m here for the troops,” Sargent said. “My son is in the Navy. . . Nancy Pelosi is very self-absorbed. How she got that position Ð God only knows.”

Fairfield resident Rod Ferroggiaro took the ferry to San Francisco to participate. He served three tours in Vietnam and he remembers the horrible treatment he and his fellow veterans received upon returning to the States. He likened it to Reid’s disrespectful actions and words.

“I know what it felt like,” Ferroggiaro said. “The civilian population had a hard time looking us in the eyes. Commanders told us not to wear our uniforms in public.

“I came here because it was the right thing to do.”

Neither Pelosi’s nor Reid’s leadership has led to a successful timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. And their behavior is apparently having an effect on public opinion. Congress now has a lower approval rating than President Bush.

MAF’s Morgan swears she won’t stop her efforts until the war is won.

“We can, and will, honor our troops by blowing some air into their sails as they fight a dirty and dangerous war,” Morgan said. “They are trying to cut the budget that funds our soldiers in harm’s way. That’s unacceptable. Senator Reid told the world ‘we are losing in Iraq.’ I DARE him to say that to a fighting man or woman in theatre. It’s disgusting.”

JTA Poll: Democrats Losing Jewish Vote

JTA Poll: Democrats Losing Jewish Vote

by Bill Levinson

For too long, Democratic House, Senate, and Presidential candidates have conducted themselves under the assumption that Jews will vote for them no matter what. This JTA poll, while not scientific, shows that there is just so much that anyone will take, and it is clear that many Jews are no longer willing to take candidates who consort with anti-Semitic individuals and hate groups. To recap, the three leading Democratic candidates have all:

(1) Attended a function hosted by the anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic hate group MoveOn.org, whose Action Forum (backed by official MoveOn.org bulletins) say that Israel has no right to exist. It also accuses Jews and Catholics of “divided loyalties,” to Israel and the Vatican respectively.
(2) Attended Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, the same group that threatened to burn a Jewish-owned store in Harlem while yelling anti-Semitic and racist epithets.
(3) Attended an event hosted by the National Jewish Democratic Council (double oxymoron, there is nothing Jewish or Democratic about it), which publishes propaganda that is damaging to Jewish-Christian relations.
(4) MoveOn.org (a proxy of America-hater and Israel-hater George Soros) claims to have bought the entire Democratic Party. Soros calls the United States a “danger to world peace” that requires “de-Nazification.”
In addition, Barack Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright, published a War in Iraq IQ test that blames the United States and Israel for most of the world’s problems. Barack Obama also accepted money from a fundraising event hosted by Allan Houston, who with a Knicks teammate effectively called Jews “Christ Killers.” The JTA poll shows that Jewish voters will no longer tolerate a party that stands for anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism, and even racism.

Here are the poll results as of May 17:

Poll: If the U.S. presidential elections were held today, who would you vote for?
Clinton 20.9%
Edwards 7.0%
Obama 14.6%
Other Democrat 7.8%
Republican candidate 49.7%

This should not come as a surprise; in fact, the real surprise is that 51 percent of Jewish voters are, like a battered spouse who is in denial about her husband being an abuser, still willing to vote for these bigot-lovers. Clinton, Edwards, and Obama all appeared at MoveOn.org, Sharpton’s National Action Network, and the National Jewish Democratic Council. All three are also on record as receiving money from George Soros; remember that Soros attempted to buy the election for Kerry/Edwards in 2004. If the Republicans were to put up a turnip with a potato as its running mate against any of these individuals, we would have to vote for the vegetable and the tuber. Given his associations with Jeremiah Wright and Allan Houston, Barack Hussein Obama is even more repugnant.

(1) MoveOn.org is an anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic hate organization. An official bulletin published by Noah T. Winer supports the Palestinians against Israel, while citing sources like Gush Shalom and Electronic Intifada. Another Noah Winer bulletin accuses “Zionists” of divided loyalties. It is far from surprising that MoveOn.org’s Action Forum says that Jews control all the media, Jews are more loyal to Israel than the United States, and Israel has no right to exist. The Action Forum denounces Catholics as pedophiles whose primary loyalty is to the Vatican, a position backed by an official MoveOn.org hate cartoon of 2005.

(2) Al Sharpton is a prominent racist and anti-Semite, and his National Action Network is a hate organization. Given its behavior prior to the arson of Freddy’s Fashion Mart–conduct that included terroristic threats to burn the store–it is arguably a violent hate organization. Sharpton and his followers routinely use terminology like “bloodsucking Jews,” “white interlopers,” “cracker lovers,” “diamond merchants,” “Don’t give the Jew a dime,” and “Greek homos.” Sharpton, who thinks he can define racism as he pleases, says “Greek homos” is not a slur against gay people, and that his friend Louis “Judaism is a gutter religion” Farrakhan is not an anti-Semite.

(3) The National Jewish Democratic Council’s “Bubbie” video portrays Christians (not Republicans, CHRISTIANS) in a “This Is the Enemy” context. This includes derogatory portrayals of Christian ministers, the cross, Jesus, and Christian beliefs about the Rapture. NJDC also portrays Jews it doesn’t like (Bush Cabinet members) in a derogatory manner, and publishes anti-Semitic “Jews as Christian haters” propaganda on its blog. NJDC is now a Republican asset, having denounced Mitt Romney for appearing at the museum of an EX-antisemite (Henry Ford) who has been dead for sixty years. Under these standards, of course, appearing with a live and unrepentant one (#2 above) disqualifies all the Democratic candidates–and the Republicans can and should use those standards.

(4) George Soros is the octopus in the Democratic Party’s living room. Everyone knows he is there, but no one wants to talk about him. We need to talk about him as much as possible, for the sake of the Democratic Party as well as the United States.

A Democratic disaster in 2008, with widespread losses in the House and Senate, may be the harsh medicine necessary to cure the party of the cancer that seems to have infested it: George Soros, hate groups, racists, anti-Semites, and similar undesirables that have no place in civilized political discourse in any country.

Posted by Bill Levinson @ 7:57 pm |

The J. Wellington Wimpy immigration plan: Amnesty now, enforcement later

US opens door to millions of Muslims

US opens door to millions of Muslims

James Lewis
The proposed immigration deal will throw open our doors to increased immigration from Muslim lands, not just Mexico. From the US State Department website:

“The fourth and most recent wave of Muslim immigration (into the US) has come after 1965, the year President Lyndon Johnson sponsored an immigration bill that repealed the longstanding system of quotas by national origin. Under the new system, preferences went to relatives of U.S. residents and those with special occupational skills needed in the United States. The new law was a signal act in American history, making it possible for the first time since the early part of the 20th century for someone to enter the country regardless of his or her national origin. After 1965, immigration from Western Europe began to decline significantly, with a corresponding growth in the numbers of persons arriving from the Middle East and Asia. In this era more than half of the immigrants to America from these regions have been Muslim.” (italics added)

Christopher Hitchens just wrote about Londonistan,

“Until he was jailed last year on charges of soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred, a man known to the police of several countries as Abu Hamza al-Masri was the imam of the Finsbury Park Mosque. He was a conspicuous figure because, having lost the use of an eye and both hands in an exchange of views in Afghanistan, he sported an opaque eye plus a hook to theatrical effect. Not as nice as he looked, Abu Hamza was nonetheless unfailingly generous with his hospitality. Overnight guests at his mosque’s sleeping quarters have included Richard Reid, the man in whose honor we now all have to take off our shoes at the airport, and Zacarias Moussaoui, the missing team member of September 11, 2001. Other visitors included Ahmed Ressam, arrested for trying to blow up LAX for the millennium, and Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian who planned to don an explosive vest and penetrate the American Embassy in Paris. On July 7, 2005 (“7/7,” as the British call it), a clutch of bombs exploded in London’s transport system. It emerged that one of the suicide murderers had been influenced by the preachings of Abu Hamza, as had two of those attempting to replicate the mission two weeks later.”

The new immigration bill will allow hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of Muslims to come into the United States over the next decade. Many of them have been indoctrinated all their lives to hate the United States, but that’s not on the immigration qualifications. Nobody asks newcomers “have you been taught to hate the United States?” But that is exactly how France and Britain created their domestic terrorist threat: By importing hundreds of thousands of unassimilated people under the guise of multicultural love and peace. Almost all vote for the Left.
Socialists are the same all over. They don’t believe in the nation-state, and sincerely try to bring about a more perfect world in which nations would not exist. They therefore knock holes in the bottom of our little lifeboat, in the belief that they’re doing us all a big favor.   They’re nice saboteurs.  
When the French Left imported millions of Muslims, with Gaullist help, they were trying to import Socialist voters who would then be rewarded with welfare benefits. Today we have nightly riots in the French burbs, with thousands of cars being torched by celebrating Muslim teenagers living on welfare. When the British Left decided to important two million Pakistanis straight from the badlands of Peshawar, they knew what they were doing. The cover story was “multiculturalism” but the reality was subversion. In their minds, the new European Union was going to be the model for an international order, just like the Soviet Union used to be. It’s exactly the same mindset.
Whether the immigrants harbor a murderous mindset towards their host country doesn’t matter at all to the Left. In fact, it makes the newcomers better revolutionary material. The first generation of Muslim immigrants to Britain felt much more favorably inclined toward their host country. Their children are being recruited by radical imams, and some of them suicide-bombed the London Underground two years ago.
Two million Pakistanis now live permanently in Britain. They vote Labour, and have a elected a floridly anti-Semitic Mayor of London 
Hitchens writes:

“It’s impossible to exaggerate how far and how fast this situation has deteriorated. … I find myself haunted by a challenge that was offered on the BBC by a Muslim activist named Anjem Choudary: a man who has praised the 9/11 murders as “magnificent” and proclaimed that “Britain belongs to Allah.” When asked if he might prefer to move to a country which practices Shari’a, he replied: “Who says you own Britain anyway?””

Will the United States follow the Brits to disaster?
James Lewis blogs at http://www.dangeroustimes.wordpress.com/

Fitzgerald: Why we need reconciliation with France

Fitzgerald: Why we need reconciliation with France

France’s policies were never quite as intolerable as depicted. Chirac is a crook, DdeV a preener, a poseur, and a poetaster. Nicholas Sarkozy, the unbeatable future president, has his embarrassments with a wayward wife, but when it comes to Islam, he is somewhat less foolable that the others. He left Tariq Ramadan exposed and humiliated on television, every taqiyya-fiber shredded. But Sarkozy also still believes that “integration” of Muslims is the key — failing to comprehend, or not allowing himself to comprehend, that “integration” is not the key (above all, not the kind of “integration” that will make Muslims better able to manipulate the minds of Infidels, which the kind of knowledge of language and moeurs can do, akin to what was taught in those KGB spy villages).

Jean-Louis Bruguiere, the head of anti-terrorism efforts within France, does not tolerate — nor need he — the kind of things that the British have permitted. The French, though they have the disadvantage of idiotically allowing in so many Muslims, nonetheless have a few advantages when it comes to listening in and monitoring. Not everyone who fled North Africa was an Arab or a Muslim. There are among the pieds noirs some who knew some Arabic. Arabic-speaking Jews, and Berbers of a secular bent, hardly wishing to have Arabs and Islam imposed on France, the country in which they now live, are all pools of talent from which to draw.

Continue reading “Fitzgerald: Why we need reconciliation with France”