0 comment Sunday, July 20, 2014 | admin
Well, the first cloture vote is over, and from the perspective of what's best for Americans, it did not go well.
FAIR, The Federation for American Immigration Reform, in their statement, uses the term 'tragedy' in referring to the amnesty bill.
This proposal -- if enacted -- will totally and utterly destroy the integrity of US immigration system for a generation. It will alter irrevocably what it means for our children and grandchildren to live in America. It reflects a total disconnect between the immigration enthusiasts in Congress and its impact on the average American community.''
The one comfort we have is that there is another cloture vote coming up on Thursday, and 60 votes are needed to pass it. So if five Senators change their votes, that would make the difference. (The vote was 64-35 today). So it ain't over till it's over. Still, the discouraging news is that some who voted 'yes' today had previously voted no.
In another encouraging sign, House GOP rebukes Senate bill:
House Republicans yesterday unveiled a resolution expressing their disapproval of the Senate immigration bill. It was offered by Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), and simply read: "resolved the House GOP Conference disapproves of the Senate immigration bill."
The move puts the House Republican Conference at odds with President Bush, who has endorsed the Senate bill. Hoekstra said that while he preferred not to break with the president, the language and content of the Senate bill compelled him to vocalize his opposition.'
[...]
"There�s growing momentum on the House side to have our voices registered on the Senate immigration bill," Hoekstra said during a press conference yesterday.
Hoekstra said the amnesty provision, no matter how strict the language, was a deal-breaker for most House Republicans.
"That�s why the fundamental bill has no credibility, and basically what we are saying today is it is dead on arrival in the House, we can�t have secret deals, this has to go through committee, it has to go in pieces," echoed Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.). "A comprehensive bill will not pass the House."
Over at NRO's The Corner, Stanley Kurtz speaks of the Bad Vibe:
Something about this immigration battle doesn�t sit well. For all the bitterness of our political battles, there�s at least the sense that the government responds to the drift of public opinion. The Republicans in Congress turned into big spenders and the war in Iraq went poorly. As a result the Democrats prospered in 2006, if narrowly. That�s how democracy works. Our politics are often angry and ugly (and that�s a problem), but this is because the public is deeply divided on issues of great importance. Deep down, we understand that our political problems reflect our own divisions.
Somehow this immigration battle feels different. The bill is wildly unpopular, yet it�s close to passing. The contrast with the high-school textbook version of democracy is not only glaring and maddening, it�s downright embarrassing. Usually, even when we�re at each others� throats, there�s still an underlying pride in the democratic process. This immigration battle strips us of even that pride.
[...]
Supporters of this bill sell it as a compromise that will heal America�s divisions. I fear it�s quite the reverse. This bill is infuriating the public and undermining faith in government itself. You can see it in the polling on confidence in Congress and the President. If this bill passes, it�s going to aggravate and embitter politics for years to come. Passing a measure over such overwhelming opposition is like slapping the public in the face.''
I second what Kurtz says. The bill may pass the Senate, and then die in the House, at least if the House is truly more responsive to the will of the majority than the elitists and sellouts in the Senate. But regardless of what the ultimate outcome of this particular bill is, I am troubled by what it is telling us about our system and about the prospects for our Republic.
Thomas Jefferson, in his first Inaugural address in 1801, said
Absolute acquiescence in the decision of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism, I deem [one of] the principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."
At Conservative Heritage Times, Michael Hill says
...But our classroom civics books did not tell us that majority rule only works where there is already a consensus of sorts on the fundamental issues within a particular society. For instance, in a Christian nation that enjoys a high degree of homogeneity in its racial and ethnic make-up, language, institutions, and inherited culture, most matters up for a vote are largely superficial policy issues. They don�t tamper with the agreed-upon foundations of the society. However, in a multicultural and multiracial polyglot Empire such as ours is today, the concept of majority rule is often fraught with dire (and even deadly) consequences for the losers, especially if the winners bear a grudge.
As I write, the U. S. Senate has just voted 64-35 (with 60 votes needed) to move ahead with Senate Bill 1639, the infamous Amnesty Bill. If the bill becomes law, which many of its supports now think is inevitable, it will grant legal status to between 12-20 million illegal aliens already in the country. This will literally open the floodgates to tens of millions more Third World immigrants over the next few decades. It will mean the end of society as we know it.
Who stands to lose by this devil�s bargain? The descendants of America�s founding stock will be the losers. Our ancestors bequeathed us a republican society based on Christian moral principles, the English language, racial (and some degree of ethnic) homogeneity, and British legal and political institutions. All this will be gone with the wind when we throw open the golden door to unlimited immigration.
Only the South, as reflected in the votes of most of its Senators, opposed this radical transformation. Some 80% of Southerners oppose amnesty. It is not surprising, then, that of the 35 "no" votes, 17 came from the South. That�s almost half of the total opposition to S. 1639. Only 11 Southern Senators (including Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Trent "NAACP" Lott of Mississippi) voted for the Amnesty Bill.
Perhaps Americans in other regions outside the South are quite happy with the idea of giving the country away to Third World illegals. But if the rest of the country is determined to go straight to hell, is the South obliged to go along for the ride just so "democracy" can be upheld?
[...]
If, in the cause of furthering America�s democratic institutions, you place your future in the hands of those who have already betrayed you, then you and your children will ultimately be dispossessed of life, liberty, and property in the name of democracy (and other dubious ideologies). You will have meekly acquiesced to the whim of a temporary majority because you did not have the nerve to walk away from the holy ground upon which you were commanded to kneel and worship the idol.''
Hill's conclusion is that secession may ultimately be necessary for those who can't or won't go where our elites are forcibly taking us. Some will call me unrealistic or extreme, but I agree with him. Maybe the fact that my forefathers chose secession once before makes it more thinkable to me.
We can only hope that the amnesty does not become law, but I am sorry to say that even if it does not, even if it goes down in flames in the House if not the Senate, it is not needed in order to utterly transform this country. The status quo, with unprecedented numbers of legal immigrants and refugees placed here at the whim of the United Nations, plus uncontrolled borders, will be enough to drive a stake through the heart of traditional America. The status quo is all that is needed for Bush and the rest of the Open Borders fanatics to have their wish of an America which is a multicultural banana republic. So, if we can trust our few honest Senators and Congressmen to do what is right, and to carry out the will of the people, yet we fail to close our borders and curb our promiscuous immigration policies, the result will be the same as if we had passed the amnesty; it might simply happen a little more slowly.
And again, the immigration issue is an ominous one not only for the transformation it portends, but it shows us clearly that our political classes are no longer responsive to us.
The status quo is unacceptable. Any politician who represents the status quo, or who won't actively oppose the status quo is unacceptable. The present crop of presidential candidates, with a few exceptions, notably Hunter, Paul, and Tancredo, represent the failed status quo, and are unacceptable.
I will go further: anybody who claims to care about the future of America, especially anyone who claims to oppose open borders and multiculturalism, yet who supports any of the mainstream candidates, is not being honest with us or perhaps with himself.
No doubt there is a streak in human beings that wishes not to rock the boat, to keep things as they are. Many people naturally distrust change, and that, in the right circumstances, is a good, honest, conservative trait, which serves society well. But in a situation like the present one, in which our elected officials are actively working against us, and essentially striking at the very foundations of our Republic, there is not much left of our country to preserve, so change is imperative. There are times when a change of course is absolutely required, as when we are in a vehicle with no brakes heading for a cliff. Sometimes we have to put the thing in reverse.
We have to face the unpleasant fact that these are the times our Founding Fathers alluded to, as in this passage from Thomas Jefferson:
Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers (adminstrators) too plainly proves a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery."
There is a systematic plan evident, and a series of oppresssions. Folks, this time it's not just a matter of electing the other party. Both parties are complicit in this; neither party is properly responsive to the will of the people. There are a few individual exceptions but for the most part, both parties are culpable and a real housecleaning is in order.
FAIR, The Federation for American Immigration Reform, in their statement, uses the term 'tragedy' in referring to the amnesty bill.
This proposal -- if enacted -- will totally and utterly destroy the integrity of US immigration system for a generation. It will alter irrevocably what it means for our children and grandchildren to live in America. It reflects a total disconnect between the immigration enthusiasts in Congress and its impact on the average American community.''
The one comfort we have is that there is another cloture vote coming up on Thursday, and 60 votes are needed to pass it. So if five Senators change their votes, that would make the difference. (The vote was 64-35 today). So it ain't over till it's over. Still, the discouraging news is that some who voted 'yes' today had previously voted no.
In another encouraging sign, House GOP rebukes Senate bill:
House Republicans yesterday unveiled a resolution expressing their disapproval of the Senate immigration bill. It was offered by Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), and simply read: "resolved the House GOP Conference disapproves of the Senate immigration bill."
The move puts the House Republican Conference at odds with President Bush, who has endorsed the Senate bill. Hoekstra said that while he preferred not to break with the president, the language and content of the Senate bill compelled him to vocalize his opposition.'
[...]
"There�s growing momentum on the House side to have our voices registered on the Senate immigration bill," Hoekstra said during a press conference yesterday.
Hoekstra said the amnesty provision, no matter how strict the language, was a deal-breaker for most House Republicans.
"That�s why the fundamental bill has no credibility, and basically what we are saying today is it is dead on arrival in the House, we can�t have secret deals, this has to go through committee, it has to go in pieces," echoed Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.). "A comprehensive bill will not pass the House."
Over at NRO's The Corner, Stanley Kurtz speaks of the Bad Vibe:
Something about this immigration battle doesn�t sit well. For all the bitterness of our political battles, there�s at least the sense that the government responds to the drift of public opinion. The Republicans in Congress turned into big spenders and the war in Iraq went poorly. As a result the Democrats prospered in 2006, if narrowly. That�s how democracy works. Our politics are often angry and ugly (and that�s a problem), but this is because the public is deeply divided on issues of great importance. Deep down, we understand that our political problems reflect our own divisions.
Somehow this immigration battle feels different. The bill is wildly unpopular, yet it�s close to passing. The contrast with the high-school textbook version of democracy is not only glaring and maddening, it�s downright embarrassing. Usually, even when we�re at each others� throats, there�s still an underlying pride in the democratic process. This immigration battle strips us of even that pride.
[...]
Supporters of this bill sell it as a compromise that will heal America�s divisions. I fear it�s quite the reverse. This bill is infuriating the public and undermining faith in government itself. You can see it in the polling on confidence in Congress and the President. If this bill passes, it�s going to aggravate and embitter politics for years to come. Passing a measure over such overwhelming opposition is like slapping the public in the face.''
I second what Kurtz says. The bill may pass the Senate, and then die in the House, at least if the House is truly more responsive to the will of the majority than the elitists and sellouts in the Senate. But regardless of what the ultimate outcome of this particular bill is, I am troubled by what it is telling us about our system and about the prospects for our Republic.
Thomas Jefferson, in his first Inaugural address in 1801, said
Absolute acquiescence in the decision of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism, I deem [one of] the principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."
At Conservative Heritage Times, Michael Hill says
...But our classroom civics books did not tell us that majority rule only works where there is already a consensus of sorts on the fundamental issues within a particular society. For instance, in a Christian nation that enjoys a high degree of homogeneity in its racial and ethnic make-up, language, institutions, and inherited culture, most matters up for a vote are largely superficial policy issues. They don�t tamper with the agreed-upon foundations of the society. However, in a multicultural and multiracial polyglot Empire such as ours is today, the concept of majority rule is often fraught with dire (and even deadly) consequences for the losers, especially if the winners bear a grudge.
As I write, the U. S. Senate has just voted 64-35 (with 60 votes needed) to move ahead with Senate Bill 1639, the infamous Amnesty Bill. If the bill becomes law, which many of its supports now think is inevitable, it will grant legal status to between 12-20 million illegal aliens already in the country. This will literally open the floodgates to tens of millions more Third World immigrants over the next few decades. It will mean the end of society as we know it.
Who stands to lose by this devil�s bargain? The descendants of America�s founding stock will be the losers. Our ancestors bequeathed us a republican society based on Christian moral principles, the English language, racial (and some degree of ethnic) homogeneity, and British legal and political institutions. All this will be gone with the wind when we throw open the golden door to unlimited immigration.
Only the South, as reflected in the votes of most of its Senators, opposed this radical transformation. Some 80% of Southerners oppose amnesty. It is not surprising, then, that of the 35 "no" votes, 17 came from the South. That�s almost half of the total opposition to S. 1639. Only 11 Southern Senators (including Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Trent "NAACP" Lott of Mississippi) voted for the Amnesty Bill.
Perhaps Americans in other regions outside the South are quite happy with the idea of giving the country away to Third World illegals. But if the rest of the country is determined to go straight to hell, is the South obliged to go along for the ride just so "democracy" can be upheld?
[...]
If, in the cause of furthering America�s democratic institutions, you place your future in the hands of those who have already betrayed you, then you and your children will ultimately be dispossessed of life, liberty, and property in the name of democracy (and other dubious ideologies). You will have meekly acquiesced to the whim of a temporary majority because you did not have the nerve to walk away from the holy ground upon which you were commanded to kneel and worship the idol.''
Hill's conclusion is that secession may ultimately be necessary for those who can't or won't go where our elites are forcibly taking us. Some will call me unrealistic or extreme, but I agree with him. Maybe the fact that my forefathers chose secession once before makes it more thinkable to me.
We can only hope that the amnesty does not become law, but I am sorry to say that even if it does not, even if it goes down in flames in the House if not the Senate, it is not needed in order to utterly transform this country. The status quo, with unprecedented numbers of legal immigrants and refugees placed here at the whim of the United Nations, plus uncontrolled borders, will be enough to drive a stake through the heart of traditional America. The status quo is all that is needed for Bush and the rest of the Open Borders fanatics to have their wish of an America which is a multicultural banana republic. So, if we can trust our few honest Senators and Congressmen to do what is right, and to carry out the will of the people, yet we fail to close our borders and curb our promiscuous immigration policies, the result will be the same as if we had passed the amnesty; it might simply happen a little more slowly.
And again, the immigration issue is an ominous one not only for the transformation it portends, but it shows us clearly that our political classes are no longer responsive to us.
The status quo is unacceptable. Any politician who represents the status quo, or who won't actively oppose the status quo is unacceptable. The present crop of presidential candidates, with a few exceptions, notably Hunter, Paul, and Tancredo, represent the failed status quo, and are unacceptable.
I will go further: anybody who claims to care about the future of America, especially anyone who claims to oppose open borders and multiculturalism, yet who supports any of the mainstream candidates, is not being honest with us or perhaps with himself.
No doubt there is a streak in human beings that wishes not to rock the boat, to keep things as they are. Many people naturally distrust change, and that, in the right circumstances, is a good, honest, conservative trait, which serves society well. But in a situation like the present one, in which our elected officials are actively working against us, and essentially striking at the very foundations of our Republic, there is not much left of our country to preserve, so change is imperative. There are times when a change of course is absolutely required, as when we are in a vehicle with no brakes heading for a cliff. Sometimes we have to put the thing in reverse.
We have to face the unpleasant fact that these are the times our Founding Fathers alluded to, as in this passage from Thomas Jefferson:
Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers (adminstrators) too plainly proves a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery."
There is a systematic plan evident, and a series of oppresssions. Folks, this time it's not just a matter of electing the other party. Both parties are complicit in this; neither party is properly responsive to the will of the people. There are a few individual exceptions but for the most part, both parties are culpable and a real housecleaning is in order.
Labels: Amnesty, Immigration Reform, Political Parties, Presidential Candidates, S1639, Senate