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
0 comment Tuesday, May 27, 2014 | admin
The latest I can find on the amnesty bill, S1639, is this piece from the editors at NRO.
Later today, the Senate will vote on whether to proceed on the bill. To revive the once-stalled bill will require 60 votes, which means that if the senators who vote no and the senators who don�t vote add up to 41, the bill is dead. The best vote count now has 33 no votes plus the non-vote of the ill Sen. Tim Johnson. Assuming this count is accurate, only seven more are needed to stop amnesty.''
They then look individually at the seven senators who supposedly have the power to stop this amnesty, and examine their positions. Some of these senators have been equivocal in their positions and thus might go either way.
The Washington Times has this report on the upcoming vote.
To pass the Senate, the bill must earn 60 votes today, survive a series of amendments, earn 60 votes in a follow-up vote likely to come Thursday, and then pass with majority support � all difficult tests on an issue that deeply divides both parties, and American voters.
"Our intelligence suggests that there will be the votes there to move on to the bill and to begin considering amendments," White House Deputy Chief of Staff Joel Kaplan told reporters yesterday as President Bush and his administration make a final push for the bill's passage.
[...]
Mr. Bush has made phone calls to senators, and two Cabinet secretaries have been such frequent lobbyists on Capitol Hill for the bill that Mr. Kaplan joked "they've basically been tenants up there for the last two or three months."
That's led to charges of arm-twisting and deals being cut.
"The American people have been working day in and day out to make the Senate understand they do not want this bill, and the administration is up on Capitol Hill trying to buy votes from senators," said Rosemary Jenks, government relations director for NumbersUSA. "When we see the final vote count, we'll know where to look for favors."
This thing looks like being close, too close for comfort. We will soon see.
Later today, the Senate will vote on whether to proceed on the bill. To revive the once-stalled bill will require 60 votes, which means that if the senators who vote no and the senators who don�t vote add up to 41, the bill is dead. The best vote count now has 33 no votes plus the non-vote of the ill Sen. Tim Johnson. Assuming this count is accurate, only seven more are needed to stop amnesty.''
They then look individually at the seven senators who supposedly have the power to stop this amnesty, and examine their positions. Some of these senators have been equivocal in their positions and thus might go either way.
The Washington Times has this report on the upcoming vote.
To pass the Senate, the bill must earn 60 votes today, survive a series of amendments, earn 60 votes in a follow-up vote likely to come Thursday, and then pass with majority support � all difficult tests on an issue that deeply divides both parties, and American voters.
"Our intelligence suggests that there will be the votes there to move on to the bill and to begin considering amendments," White House Deputy Chief of Staff Joel Kaplan told reporters yesterday as President Bush and his administration make a final push for the bill's passage.
[...]
Mr. Bush has made phone calls to senators, and two Cabinet secretaries have been such frequent lobbyists on Capitol Hill for the bill that Mr. Kaplan joked "they've basically been tenants up there for the last two or three months."
That's led to charges of arm-twisting and deals being cut.
"The American people have been working day in and day out to make the Senate understand they do not want this bill, and the administration is up on Capitol Hill trying to buy votes from senators," said Rosemary Jenks, government relations director for NumbersUSA. "When we see the final vote count, we'll know where to look for favors."
This thing looks like being close, too close for comfort. We will soon see.
Labels: Amnesty, Borders, Politics, S1639, Senate
0 comment Thursday, May 15, 2014 | admin
...let it begin here.'The words, which you see on the Minuteman monument, are those of Captain John Parker at Lexington, before the battle there.
For some reason, those words came to mind today as I was reading some of the day's news regarding the amnesty bill.
It seems that some of our Senators have declared war on us, as witness these words of Pennsylvania's Sen. Arlen Specter.
We are in trench warfare and it's going to be rough,'' said Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter, a chief sponsor of the legislation. ``But we are going to see the will of the Senate work one way or another.''
The quote is here, in this article.
I mean, how much more clear can it be, from Specter's words?
The first part of the statement, where Specter says they are in 'trench warfare' is bad enough; who are the enemies they are fighting? Us, seemingly. Who else? But please read the second part of the quote, wherein Specter says 'we are going to see the will of the Senate work one way or another.'
What's wrong with this picture? They, our Senators and Congressmen are supposed to represent us and to serve us, in accordance with the Constitution. They are not there to work their own will, or the President's will, or Wall Street's will, or the World Council of Churches' will, or La Raza's will, or anybody's will but ours. We, the people, (remember us, Senator Specter?) are the repositories of any legitimate power you have, and you hold it only at our pleasure. We lend you any power that you have, we, the people, as the rightful possessors of it. To the extent that you represent something other than the majority will of your constituents, you have no legitimacy. You are a rogue politician, you and all of your treasonous colleagues in the Senate.
And if my readers aren't properly incensed over the arrogance and ignorance expressed by Specter and his ilk, I offer this brazen piece from (where else?) that other seat of arrogant elitism, the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Our moral betters at the WSJ are lecturing us that we had better get with the program in order to save the future of the Grand Old Party. And the future is Hispanic, whether we like it or not, according to the WSJ.
Immigration and the GOP
Immigration reform stayed alive in the Senate yesterday, albeit not without continuing rancor among Republicans. Restrictionists seem to believe the issue will harm the GOP if it succeeds, but we think the political reality is closer to the opposite: The greater danger for Republicans is if it fails.
We've written often about the merits of immigration reform, and we have our own problems with parts of the Senate bill. But it's worth spending some time on the larger politics of the issue, especially for Republicans. They're caught between a passionate minority of their party--who oppose any reform that allows illegals a path to citizenship--and the larger electorate, which is more moderate and wants to solve the problem. Like Democrats on national security, this is a classic case in which pandering to the base will harm the GOP overall.
That's true most immediately for Presidential hopefuls like Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, who continue to assail the bill as "amnesty." No doubt this gets applause in some Republican precincts. But in the near term, meaning through 2008, Republicans would be far better off helping President Bush and John McCain pass something that takes immigration off the table. If the issue remains central to the 2008 debate, it will divide the GOP and the media will play up the split. Given the passions that immigration evokes on the right in particular, the issue could easily drown out other domestic policy messages the candidates would prefer to run on.
The longer term danger is that the GOP is sending a message to Latinos that it doesn't want them in the party. And if that message sticks, Republicans could put themselves back in minority party status for a generation or more. Hispanics are the largest ethnic minority in the country, and their voting numbers continue to grow. Hispanics were estimated to be 8% of the electorate in 2006, compared with 6% in 2004 and 5.5% in 2000. Census data show that the number of Latino voters could rise to 10% or more by 2008. The demographic reality is that the GOP can't be a majority party with Anglo-Saxon votes alone.
[...]
By the way, the growth in the Hispanic population will continue regardless of what happens with immigration from now on. The number of Hispanics who already hold green cards guarantees that their share of the electorate will increase over time even if Congress could seal the Southern border tomorrow. The GOP should be competing for these voters rather than driving them away with a barely concealed message of "Mexicans, go home."
Notwithstanding the small but loud segment of the GOP base preoccupied with the issue, hostility to immigration has never been a political winner. Like trade protection, people protectionism always polls better in telephone surveys than on Election Day. For a Presidential candidate especially, it sends a negative message rather than one of optimistic leadership. If GOP candidates can't support Mr. Bush and Senator Jon Kyl on immigration, they should at least avoid the kind of demagoguery that will hurt their party for years to come.''
Just how out-of-touch are those guys at the WSJ? Do they suppose that we out here in the hinterlands really care most about a political party or somebody's profit margins, or do we care more about the Republic? I hope the answer is the latter, but we will shortly find out. We will find out, as our backs are to the wall, how many real friends this Republic has. But we can be sure our political classes and the media, especially the WSJ, are not among them.
First, the WSJ op-ed writers disingenuously state that restrictionists are merely a loud minority, much as Linda Chavez, Hispanic loyalist extraordinaire, says, and further, they say that the majority of American citizens are in favor of a 'path to citizenship'.
This is false, and any polls which indicate such preferences are deceptively and manipulatively crafted to show a desired result. The majority does not favor amnesty, no matter which smarmy euphemism the elites attach to it.
And secondly, ask me, WSJ, if I care whether the GOP becomes a 'minority party.' The sun neither rises nor sets on the Republican Party. If the party no longer represents the citizenry of this country, it deserves to die the death. If the party is willing to sell us out and to purposely transform this country with a new citizenry, they are no party of mine. This Republic will not stand or fall based on any political party.
For too long, many sincerely patriotic people have linked the fate of this country to the fate of the GOP, thinking that the GOP must be the savior of traditional America. However, it is only the sheer awfulness of the Democrat party that has given the Republicans an unearned reputation as the 'patriotic' party. It is only the extreme leftist tilt of the Democrat Party that has made the Republicans appear 'right-wing.' It's all an optical illusion.
What more evidence do we need, after reading the words of Senator Specter, and after seeing the machinations of Senators of both parties, that the GOP is not acting in our interests, that too many of the party, with a few individual exceptions, are interested only in their own self-aggrandizement and power, and that they no longer honor the principles on which our Republic was founded?
Enough is enough. Time to repudiate those who have repudiated us.
And as for the WSJ's arrogant assertion that
the growth in the Hispanic population will continue regardless of what happens with immigration from now on. The number of Hispanics who already hold green cards guarantees that their share of the electorate will increase over time even if Congress could seal the Southern border tomorrow. ''
I am afraid that they may be right. I am not sure where that leaves those of us who do not want to live in a Spanish-speaking banana republic, but I see little to inspire loyalty in the country the WSJ and the Senate elitists are preparing for us.
And it looks like they have declared war on us, by their own words and actions.
Labels: Amnesty, Borders, Gop, Media Bias, Open Borders, Political Parties, Republicans, S1639, Senate