Sunday, June 30, 2013

Forum: Should Senators Who Voted For The Amnesty Bill Be Primaried?



Every week on Monday morning , the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day. This week's question: Should Senators Who Voted For The Amnesty Bill Be Primaried?

 Rhymes With Right: Yes, I do think that those senators who voted for amnesty should be primaried. But then again, I believe that EVERY officeholder should be primaried. There should be choices for the voter for every office. After all, the office belongs to We The People, not to their temporary occupants, and we always deserve a choice.

The Razor: Have we discussed going third party yet?

Because after Palin’s comments and the GOP’s behavior in the Senate regarding immigration I’m beginning to think we might have to do it. I’ve only been a card carrying member of the GOP since 2002 so it won’t be hard for me to go back to being indy – although I’d rather go to some other party that represents my beliefs (libertarian without being isolationist and anti-Semitic.)

Here’s a good article on countering arguments against a 3rd Party:

The Independent Sentinel:I absolutely do believe Senators who voted for the immigration bill should be primaried.

These Senators advertised the bill as having the toughest border security in our history and perhaps in the world while ignoring the 40% of illegals who are here because they overstay visas. We have lost track of 15,000 from the mid-East alone who are here on student visas and who have disappeared.

There were countless misstatements by these Senators such as claiming the DHS Secretary cannot stop the building of the border fence when it states clearly in page 36 that she can.

They claimed there would be 20,000 border agents added but neglected to tell us that they have until 2021 to do it. They also failed to mention that they added NO agents to ICE.

I could go on for 800 pages with the flaws in this bill.

They are trying to conduct business as usual in a very dangerous world. They do not have our backs. We need to look for candidates who do.

JoshuaPundit: I'm not honestly certain the question isn't moot. If you're a Tea Party or conservative Republican or an independent who voted Republican and your elected officials are treating you with this kind of contempt, it sort of sends a signal, doesn't it?

Senator Marco Rubio, for instance, is only in office because of the work and fundraising done for him by Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint and the Tea Party activists.He claims to be a fiscal conservative but openly lied, connived and finagled to get a pork laden bill through the senate that will cost the country billions and severely impact working Americans and legal immigrants.If Charlie Crist had been elected instead, would things have been that much different?


I think the Republican establishment is getting a very clear message from its base and is ignoring  it thus far. If that continues, I think it answers this week's question pretty succinctly. Sometimes, I really think you do have to destroy something in order to save it.

  Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?


Friday, June 28, 2013

The Latest LATMA - Cutting Edge Israeli Satire!!



This week: The Kerry peace plan and the Heath Minister's organ donor program

(BTW, a muezzin is the one who bellows out the Muslim call to prayer over amplified speakers from a mosque's minaret.)

RNC Head Urges House To Vote For Amnesty

GOP chief: 'We need comprehensive immigration reform'

Yes, the head of the Republican National Committee is lobbying for a bill that will put millions of Democrat voters on the rolls. No joke:

"We need comprehensive immigration reform," RNC Chairman Reince Priebus told CNN in an interview in his Capitol Hill office. "I don't think we can continue to drift along with this mess of immigration laws that we have. And a mess that in many regards has been the results of our government not even enforcing the laws that are in place. There is plenty of blame to go around for why we are in this position, but I think it's about time that we address it." [...]

Priebus said that House Speaker John Boehner is unlikely to take up the Senate bill and instead craft a package that could be approved by the House before being taken back to Senate negotiators.

"My understanding is that the House is going to draft its own version of an immigration bill that they see as either a better fix for comprehensive immigration reform, or something that is reflective of the Republican majority of the House, and then potentially go to conference, and potentially have a conclusion," he said.

"I know the leadership in the House is committed to putting something pretty comprehensive together that's going to address the issue," he said.


Oh, and then there's this:

"One thing I think is pretty clear," Priebus told CNN. "We wouldn't have been in this place without Republicans being at the table pushing for immigration reform. And I think this conversation would never be happening without Marco Rubio."


Yes, Marco Rubio...who made border security a main issue of his campaign and referred to the path to citizenship as just a cover word for amnesty.Who openly lied.

If Charlie Crist had won in 2010, would things be any different?

As for Reince Priebus, he's supposed to be the GOP's top mechanic, the one who's job it is to find and field acceptable candidates, fund them and help them strategize how to win.

Assuming he actually does know the craft of politics, riddle me this - why would you urge your own party get behind legislation that is going to legalize millions of Democrat voters, while alienating your own party's base?

I've already run those numbers myself last November, showing that the Hispanic tidal wave is a myth..a mere 3.5% of the electorate in 2012 and already mostly inhabiting Blue States like California, New York and New Jersey.Two thirds of the Hispanic electorate is either Republican or up for grabs. And as Byron York recently pointed out, Romney would have had to win a ridiculously high 70% of the Hispanic vote to win, but with only 4% more of the white vote, from 59% to 64%, he'd have won handily.

Almost 5 million white voters sat it out in 2012 because Mitt Romney didn't resonate with them and over 3 million of them were self-declared registered Republicans.

Priebus can't be so stupid as to be unable to add, so the obvious conclusion is that he's simply following the orders of the people that pay his salary. They'd prefer to alienate the GOP's base (whom they've always hated anyway) and run an approved member of the Ruling Class like Jeb Bush in 2016.

They're going to see where that gets them.

Sarah Palin Unloads On The GOP Over Amnesty Bill

1001014_10151696618443588_230169468_n

She must be feeling particularly betrayed, since a number of the senators that voted for this atrocity like Marco Rubio and Kelly Ayotte only got there because of her and the Tea Party activist's help.

Here's her full Facebook post:

Please take a look at the article linked below to understand how the amnesty bill the Senate passed yesterday is a sad betrayal of working class Americans of every ethnicity who will see their wages lowered and their upward mobility lowered too. And yet we still do not have a secured border. This Senate-approved amnesty bill rewards lawbreakers and won’t solve any problems – as the CBO report notes that millions of more illegal immigrants will continue to flood the U.S. in coming years.

Great job, GOP establishment. You’ve just abandoned the Reagan Democrats with this amnesty bill, and we needed them to “enlarge that tent” of which you so often speak. It’s depressing to consider that the House of Representatives is threatening to pass some version of this nonsensical bill in the coming weeks.

Once again, I’ll point out the obvious to you: it was the loss of working class voters in swing states that cost us the 2012 election, not the Hispanic vote. Legal immigrants respect the rule of law and can see how self-centered a politician must be to fill this amnesty bill with favors, earmarks, and crony capitalists’ pork, and call it good. You disrespect Hispanics with your assumption that they desire ignoring the rule of law.

Folks like me are barely hanging on to our enlistment papers in any political party – and it’s precisely because flip-flopping political actions like amnesty force us to ask how much more bull from both the elephants in the Republican Party and the jackasses in the Democrat Party we have to swallow before these political machines totally abandon the average commonsense hardworking American. Now we turn to watch the House. If they bless this new “bi-partisan” hyper-partisan devastating plan for amnesty, we’ll know that both private political parties have finally turned their backs on us. It will then be time to show our parties’ hierarchies what we think of being members of either one of these out-of-touch, arrogant, and dysfunctional political machines.

- Sarah Palin


As usual, she's 100% correct.

The entire GOP Renaissance in 2010 only happened because of Sarah Palin and then-Senator Jim DeMint, and the GOP establishment fought them every step of the way.

The reward for both of them was essentially to be ridiculed and driven from the GOP.

Notice this part: Folks like me are barely hanging on to our enlistment papers in any political party – and it’s precisely because flip-flopping political actions like amnesty force us to ask how much more bull from both the elephants in the Republican Party and the jackasses in the Democrat Party we have to swallow before these political machines totally abandon the average commonsense hardworking American.

I think Governor Palin and those that think like her are fed up to the point they have an entirely new, independent movement in mind. I think it's been brewing for some time,and that it's probably far too late to stop it even if the House rejects the Amnesty bill.

Which, of course is exactly how the Republican Party was born in the first place, over disgust with the Whigs on slavery and a number of myriad other issues.

The GOP establishment hates conservatives, hates the Tea Party, hates people like Ted Cruz,Jeff Sessions, Mike Lee, Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint. They want them out of the Republican Party.

I think they're going to get their wish. But I doubt they're going to like the results.

Mexican Prostitute Takes Journalism Course

 http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_WMpSC7nK3os/Sk1HMk9wLmI/AAAAAAAADs4/q6eWpB1_hX8/s400/prostitutes01.jpg

That's the headline, an AFP story about how a Mexican charity gives journalism training to prostitutes.

My reaction? An excellent idea. Given the state of 'journalism' today, being a prostitute amounts to resume' worthy on-the-job experience.

MSNBC and the rest of the ObamaMedia ought to jump on this.

The Council Has Spoken!! This Week's Watcher's Council Results



The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and we have the results  for this week's Watcher's Council match up.

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.

For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague."


Marcus Tullius Cicero


 http://www.noisyroom.net/blog/joshuapundit.jpg

This week's winner, Joshuapundit's  Fear And Loathing In DC - The Gang Of Eight's Amnesty Bill Is A Disaster is my take on the abysmal amnesty legislation the Senate just passed, written right after the bogus Corker-Hoeven Amendment surfaced from the ooze  and before the actual vote. Like ObamaCare, it's a supremely bad idea and something foisted on us by our Ruling Class in spite of vast opposition by the American people they supposedly serve Here's a slice:

 Today at 5:30 PM, the United States Senate will vote on an important part of the Gang of Eight Amnesty bill, the Corker-Hoeven amendment. Majority Leader Harry Reid is rushing the nearly 1200 page bill through even though the Senate has only had a chance to look at it for a mere 72 hours.

 When you actually go over this bill submitted under the guise of 'immigration reform', you realize how awful it really is.

The language of the bill reminds me of the the Affordable Care Act, (AKA Obamacare) in that it's filled with (a)obtuse, dense language that clues us in that it is deliberately deceptive (b)glosses over the real issues involved and (c) is absolutely filled with waivers, exemptions and exceptions left to the sole discretion of political appointees and language like 'the Secretary, in the Secretary’s sole and unreviewable discretion, may waive...'

'Sole and unreviewable discretion'? Just imagine what an Obama appointee like Janet Napolitano is going to do with that.

They denied it for a long time, but the bill's proponents have finally admitted that this is an amnesty bill, and as even Senator Marco Rubio admitted back when he was trying to get elected with Tea Party support, the 'path to citizenship' rhetoric is just a euphemism for exactly that.

If the estimates on illegal migration into the U.S. are correct, we're talking about 11.5 million people, except that when we include chain migration and family unification (which the bill doesn't prohibit) we're probably talking about 25 million or more. But let's just talk about the estimated 11.5 million whom are here for now. Anyone who was in the U.S. prior to 2012 qualifies, but since the bill doesn't call for any definitive real proof, fraud is going to be rampant.

The entire concept of amnesty is an interesting one, as is the idea of terming it immigration reform.

It basically turns the entire idea of immigration inside out.

Rather than it being a privilege extended by a sovereign nation to people it decides to welcome legally to fill its own needs, amnesty makes it a right, an entitlement.It's no accident that many people in the amnesty lobby refer to themselves as 'immigrant rights activists'.

The obvious that's unsaid given the demographic makeup of the vast majority of illegal migrants is that it's a right because this is supposedly 'stolen' Mexican land, something only groups like MeCha and La Raza say openly. But the context is obvious.

If that's the actual argument, that America has no sovereign rights over a part of its territory the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo notwithstanding, fine. But that's a separate argument.

The idea of 'immigration reform' is likewise interesting. Real immigration reform might involve cutting some of the immensely complicated and expensive red tape involved when an American citizen falls in love with a foreign national and wants to bring their spouse home to live, or when an American corporation wants to import a foreign scientist or technical expert to work here.Or creating a points system based on needed skills, English proficiency, ties to America or the willingness of an entrepreneur to bring financial capital to invest to start a business.

Nothing much is going to be 'reformed' for the 4.6 million legal immigrant applicants to America stuck in those situations. No one wants to discus how fair it is to give the 11.5 million people who are here illegally priority over the suckers who decided to follow the law and come here legally. Instead, we're going to create special rules that apply to no other immigrants but a select group largely made up of one demographic who merit this special treatment strictly for political purposes.

A potential legal immigrant from Europe or Asia would hardly be unjustified in calling that unfair and racist. It is. One of my correspondents, an English speaking Dutch software engineer with 3 inches of degrees after his name,  over a decade's worth of experience,  and a totally  clean  record finally gave up after spending a year and thousands of dollars trying to jump through the hoops ICE put in front of him and emigrated with his family to Israel, where they jumped at the chance and slashed red tape to get him. In America people like my engineer friend  will go to the back of the line behind an unskilled laborer from Sinaloa or Nuevo Leon with limited or non-existent English and an 8th grade education. The current amnesty bill would exacerbate this situation even more.

I've had some experience in conducting negotiations where there are diverse views involved. Here's a fairly ironclad rule; when people's goals are the same but their ideas on what mechanics to use to achieve them are different, consensus is usually attainable. But when their actual goals are different, actual consensus is excruciatingly difficult, and what you normally get instead is game playing, lies and deception.

What we're seeing here is the second scenario.



In our non-Council category, the winner was The Sad Red Earth with “It goes without saying”: the Further Rhetoric of Terrorist Apologia submitted by Simply Jews. It's a wonderful  examination of the perversions of language and rationalizations used by a class of people I refer to as 'terrorist groupies'.   Do read it.


OK, here are this week’s full results:

Council Winners


Non-Council Winners


See you next week! Don't forget to tune in on Monday AM for this week's Watcher's Forum, as the Council and their invited special guests take apart one of the provocative issues of the day with short takes and weigh in...don't you dare miss it. And don't forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.....'cause we're cool like that!

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Amnestia Si ! Senates Votes 68-32 In Favor

 

You see, they simply don't care what we think anymore. They're the Ruling Class and they know better.

The Senate voted today to pass the Amnesty legislation 68-32, after Harry Reid was successful in shutting down debate and even stopping a number of proposed amendments from being  heard, much less voted on.

The Democrats voted in lockstep, which I actually respect on one level.They have their agenda and they support it.

Then there were the 14 Republicans who voted with them to send this deeply flawed legislation to the House:

Lamar Alexander of Tennessee;

Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire;

Jeff Chiesa of New Jersey;

Susan Collins of Maine;

Bob Corker of Tennessee;

Jeff Flake of Arizona;

Lindsey Graham of South Carolina;

Orrin Hatch of Utah;

Dean Heller of Nevada;

John Hoeven of North Dakota

Mark Kirk of Illinois;

John McCain of Arizona;

Lisa Murkowski of Alaska;

As I've pointed out before, the bill is almost biblical in its arrogance, deception, and fiscal irresponsibility. It does not address the problem it was supposedly crafted to solve and it makes no provisions for securing our border. And it is laden with the same kind of obscure language and outright bribes ObamaCare was.

Any senator whom voted for this atrocity is either malicious or too naive and gullible to be taken seriously anymore.

The fight now moves to the House. While Speaker John Boehner promised again today that he wasn't going top bring this bill to a vote and that the House would come up with its own legislation, I trust him about as much as I trust Bob Corker or any of the others listed above.

Any plumber knows that the first step in fixing a leak or to turn off the flow of water at its source. The first step in doing anything about this is to secure the border in ways where 'the sole discretion of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security' (to quote frequent language used in the bill) doesn't appear.

To get that, we're going to have to literally bombard Congress with tweets, e-mails and phone calls and scare the Republican members to death that come 2014 they're history if they vote for amnestia.

More Unreported Anti-Israel Media Bias-Palestinian Terrorists Use Journalists as Human Shields



Here's an interesting video that shows how hypocritical and morally delinquent a lot of the media coverage concerning Israelis.

Here we see terrorists actually throwing firebombs at IDF soldiers while hiding behind journalists and using their bodies as human shields. The brave Palestinian fighters are clearly hiding behind the journalists.

If the Israelis had done anything like this, there would be scramming headlines worldwide. Since it's the Arabs, not a single peep.

Part of the reason can be deduced from listening to the soundtrack.You can hear the 'journalists' egging on the terrorists with cries of 'one more, one more in English, exhorting them to throw yet another firebomb.Because these scum want a still shot or an exciting video for their media bosses' evening news shows or late editions, they are encouraging the Palestinians to throw potentially lethal firebombs at the Israelis until they get what they want. They do not care that they are aiding and abetting th e4killing of Israelis. They are no longer 'journalists' but provocateurs taking sides, secure in the knowledge that they're dealing with a civilized people who won't treat them like the enemy they are.

This is anti-semitism pure and simple.

Needless to say, if the IDF had done the natural thing and fired on this position, they'd be vilified as 'murderers' who 'don't respect journalists' by these same people.

( h/t, Camera)

US Military Chief General Dempsey's Latest Brilliant Idea - 'Let's Arm And Train Hezbollah!"

 US Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey

General Martin Dempsey is President Obama's Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And in spite of a decent record as a  combat commander  in Iraq, it's pretty obvious that he fits in perfectly with this president and his policy goals.

Aside from being the point man in calling the Ft. Hood jihadi killings a 'workplace accident',  imposing ridiculous rules of engagement on our troops under fire and preventing them from being taught about the nature of Islamist fascism, he's come up with another brainstorm, undoubtedly via SecDef Chuck Hagel - wouldn't it be just splendid to arm and train the Lebanese military?

The top US military officer said on Wednesday he has recommended bolstering Lebanese forces grappling with the fallout from Syria's civil war by sending in military trainers and accelerating arms sales.

He was responding to a question at the news conference about whether Lebanon had asked for military help and whether the US military might go into that country.

"When you say would we send the United States Army or the United States military into Lebanon, I'm talking about teams of trainers, and I'm talking about accelerating foreign military sales for equipment for them," Dempsey said in response.

There's absolutely no sense in our providing shiny new equipment and training on how to use it to any Arab army...but it's particularly clueless when it comes to Lebanon.

You see, there's a peculiarity about Lebanon's Army. It's totally integrated with Hezbollah. And it has been for years.

Even Lebanon's current president, General Michel Suleiman is a  Hezbollah ally who as the  former Lebanese C in C refused to allow the Lebanese Army to fight against Hezbollah even when Hezbollah was killing Lebanese civilians during a series of attacks against the March 14 Lebanese government in May of 2008.

He has famously said on a number of occasions that 'Hezbollah is Lebanon'. That's why the Israelis made a formal announcement  that if they were attacked from Lebanon again, unlike the last time they would consider it an attack on Israel by Lebanon, not just Hezbollah.

This is whom General Dempsey (and former Sec Sate Hillary Clinton before him)  want to arm and 'bolster'. To assume that US military aid earmarked for the Lebanese forces won't somehow end up being used by Hezbollah is the sort of fantasy beyond even what you'd expect from today's White House.

Among other things, it presents the ludicrous picture of our arming the Muslim Brotherhood and  al-Qaeda allied  Syrian rebels with one hand and Hezbollah with the other. And of course, having any personnel we have there targeted by both sides. Remember what happened in Beirut at the hands of Hezbollah the last time we sent troops there?

Of course, it also provides Israel's enemies with armaments and support as well, which might be the whole point anyway.

Beyond ludicrous.

Texas: SCOTUS Voting Rights Decision Clears The Way For Implementing Voter ID Law

 

As you might know, the Supreme Court recently struck down  Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act that dated from 1965, almost half a century ago. The section that they removed dealt with the necessity of sovereign states in the South  needing to seek federal approval before making any changes to their voting laws.

Aside from being unconstitutional, these provision were antiquated a long time ago. But they were still used as a political tool by the Democrats until now, a massive irony considering who actually was the party of Jim Crow.

One thing the new decision did was to allow Texas to implement a law requiring voter IDs that the state legislature passed overwhelmingly in 2011/. The law was identical to one implemented in Indiana, but Texas was prevented from implementing their law by President Obama's justice department. So the courts did their work and that obstacle to equality under th elaw has now been removed.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott had this to say:

“This is a huge win for the Constitution and for equality in this country,” Abbott said. “Before today, different states were treated differently under the Constitution. The Voting Rights Act is the only law that was used to impose disparate or different kind of treatment. Specifically, Texas was called out and treated differently than other states.”

Abbott noted that Indiana approved a voter ID law a few years ago and had that law upheld by the Supreme Court. But when Texas passed a nearly identical law in 2011, the Obama administration used the Voting Rights Act to block it.

“That just showed that they were using the Voting Rights Act law to treat Texas different from Indiana, and that was part of the backdrop behind today’s decision,” Abbott said. The court ruled today that that law was being used “unfairly, illegally, inappropriately, therefore it was unconstitutional,” Abbott said.


Now that this tool for voter fraud has been rendered inoperable, we may see far different results in Texas elections. Unfortunately too late fop rth e2012 elections, but still welcome.

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Aussie Labour Party Self-Destructs; Conservatives Poised For Big Win In Election

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2013/06/gillard-rudd_2598328b-460x288.jpg

Turnabout is, if you'll pardon an Americanism, a bitch.

Since the intricacies of Oz politics are perhaps difficult to follow, I'll give you the short n' simple version.And why it could matter.

Australia's great PM John Howard (and I still have a standing offer out there dating from 2006 to swap him for the current occupant of our own White House, with maybe some cash thrown in from our end) ended ten years of Liberal rule (the Liberals are the Conservative party in Australia) with a strong, resurgent country, a virtual end to illegal migration and a $A20 billion surplus thanks to the reforms instituted by Howard and his treasurer Peter Costello.

In a 2007 election Howard didn't have his heart really in anyway (he even leveled with his constituents and told them he might not finish out another term) he was defeated by Labour's Mark Rudd, who ran an unusual campaign of touting Howard's programs and pledging no changes to the point that some Oz journalists referred to him as 'Mr. Me Too'.

Being Labour, Rudd of course was unable to keep his word. He promptly embarked on a huge 'stimulus' spending spree that wiped out the surplus and put the country back in debt.He also went after Australia's mining industry with a highly unpopular special tax that would have seen millions flow into federal coffers from Australia's states and meant that the mining companies simply canceled projects and moved jobs overseas.

With an election coming up in 2010 Rudd was deeply unpopular...which is when Julia Gillard, his deputy Prime Minister engineered a coup d'etat, leaking polls that showed Rudd getting beat like a gong by Tony Abbot and the Liberals. She cut him off at the knees(or somewhere down south)engineered a party vote and got him tossed out of the party leadership in favor of herself.

Gillard did manage to get herself elected as Australia's first female PM, but only by a knife edge with the support of a far Left Green Party MP and three independent MPs. It was not a stable marriage, to say the least.

She promptly broke a major campaign promise and instituted a farcical 'carbon tax' that raised priced and the cost of utilities nation wide, went after Australia's slot machines, and wasted billions in funding obscure projects.

Like her predecessor Rudd, she ignored John Howard's 'Pacific Solution' which practically ended illegal migration into Australia, with the result that it skyrocketed.And she allowed a large number of refugees into Australia from very non-Australian cultural backgrounds into the country with little or no oversight, with the sort of results you might expect.

With an election coming up in September, Gillard had become markedly unpopular in OZ, to the point that people were throwing sandwich remains at her.In public.

So Rudd went ahead and sandbagged Julia Gillard in a ballot of MPs for Labor party leadership.

Gillard operated with some real stones, I have to say. She forced Rudd into a do-or-die ballot, on the condition that the loser retire from parliament to end the Labor leadership war.

She lost, by a margin of 57 to 45.

Gillard stuck by her word, saying she would not contest the next election.

In her concession speech, Gillard congratulated Rudd and called on the party to fight to win the September election. She acknowledged that her tenure as prime minister had been difficult, saying: "In the years in which I've served as prime minister, predominantly I've faced a minority government and political division in my own party. It has not been an easy parliament to operate in."

At this point, Tony Abbot and the Liberals are well ahead in the polls, and Abbot is calling for immediate elections instead of waiting until September. If Abbot wins, we could see Australia joining Canada as another resurgent Anglosphere democracy under conservative rule.

I have to admit, I had some liking for Julia Gillard, even though I disagreed with a lot of her politics. It seems like she got caught in a trap of trying to please too many people at one time. She had a decent sense of humor that a lot of politicians lack, ( after she got a sandwich thrown at her, she quipped 'Maybe they thought I looked hungry')  and she was no mindless Leftist ideologue. After a great speech she made at the White House about the Australian and American alliance, I dropped her a line on the PM's website (yes, in Australia, they haven't embraced the hypocrisy of having an insulated Ruling Class just yet) just to give her a thumbs up and tell her how much I enjoyed it.

You wouldn't expect a politician to take the time to bother to answer someone who can't vote for them or give them money. Ms. Gillard did, and it was quite a nice reply. Even if she farmed it out to one of her staffers (and I doubt it, because it didn't have that form letter phrasing), it was a nice gesture.

Whatever happens, I hope she's OK.

 Julia Gillard 2010.jpg

A Few Words On The DOMA And Prop 8 Supreme Court Decisions

Today the Supreme Court issued two rulings on gay marriage with interesting implications.

In the first one, by a 5-4 ruling the Court struck down certain provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)signed into law by President Clinton.

In Windsor v. United States, it declared provisions of the law invalid that prohibit homosexual couples from sharing government health care benefits, filing taxes jointly, and similar items under the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

Justice Kennedy was the swing vote.

You'll note two things..first, that this simple and essentially fair fix could have been done in Congress long ago with reference to civil unions without even touching the definition of marriage, as it essentially amends the law without rescinding it.

And second, that is does not make gay marriage 'legal' except in those states that want to make it so. Although it does signal (but not implicitly state) that such unions should be recognized nationwide.What the Court essentially did was to punt, just as they did in the other ruling on this subject they made, which we'll discuss shortly.

DOMA was always a queer piece of law (no pun intended). Like Don't Ask Don't Tell, it was a compromise based on the assurances of gay activists and their congressional supporters that they would never seek to overturn it judicially - which of course is exactly what they did afterwards. And in fact it was mostly same sex marriage advocates in congress who mostly kept DOMA from being amended, precisely because they were after the bigger goal of redefining marriage itself.

To prove this to yourself, ask any gay person of your acquaintance who rabidly favors legalized same sex marriage on the grounds of 'equal rights' if they would be satisfied with law that establishes every one of those rights they claim they want  but legally refers to civil unions instead of marriages. You'll invariably get an indignant 'no!' in almost all cases.

This was never about equal rights.It was always about redefining marriage. And once you do that, literally anything can become a marriage.

The second Supreme Court decision rendered today concerned California's Proposition 8, voted for by almost a two to one majority in that state to change California's constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

At the time, California had legalized civil unions which even the state's own Supreme Court justices admitted gave same sex couples in a civil union the exact same rights as a heterosexual married couple. But a ruling by openly gay Judge Vernon Walker that the new law was unconstitutional sent Proposition 8 on the road to the Supreme Court.

What the SCOTUS did was simply to emphasize their earlier decision on DOMA by refusing to hear the case based on - wait for it - a lack of standing. Here we have the votes of an entire state dismissed, as the case goes back to the lower court whom will likewise do the same. So California will have gay marriage regardless of what the residents want, and Governor Jerry Brown (who as attorney general made a unilateral decision to ignore his oath of office and not defend the new law in court) has ordered the state to resume issuing licenses for same sex marriages within 30 days.

The rationale for this is particularly revealing. Here's Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion explaining the decision to dismiss the case:

For there to be such a case or controversy, it is not enough that the party invoking the power of the court have a keen interest in the issue. That party must also have "standing," which requires, among other things, that it have suffered a concrete and particularized injury. Because we find that petitioners do not have standing, we have no authority to decide this case on the merits, and neither did the Ninth Circuit.

Once Proposition 8, which limited marriage in California to heterosexual couples, was approved by the voters, the measure became "a duly enacted constitutional amendment or statute." Petitioners have no role—special or otherwise—in the enforcement of Proposition 8. They therefore have no "personal stake" in defending its enforcement that is distinguishable from the general interest of every citizen of California.


No standing? What exactly are the people of California supposed to do if their own elected officials pick and choose which laws they like and which ones they will enforce and defend in court? Is that what we've come to?

In his dissent, Justice Kennedy at least tried to be honest about the matter, arguing that the SCOTUS should have made a ruling in this case:

The Court today unsettles its longtime understanding of the basis for jurisdiction in representative-party litigation, leaving the law unclear and the District Court's judgment, and its accompanying statewide injunction, effectively immune from appellate review.

Kennedy also smacked state officials for opposing Prop 8 in the manner they did as another reason the SCOTUS should have taken this on:

In the end, what the Court fails to grasp or accept is the basic premise of the initiative process. And it is this. The essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around. Freedom resides first in the people without need of a grant from government. The California initiative process embodies these principles and has done so for over a century.



Eh, but not in California so much any more. Or a lot of other places either, where same sex marriage was pushed through without bothering to actually consult the voters. So in today's decisions, the SCOTUS is simply saying to the activists on both sides that if you can get a state to allow same sex marriage or to disallow it by any means necessary, so be it.

Right now, same sex marriage is legal in 15 states. The only one where voters actually had a say in the matter and voted for it are Maine, Maryland, and Washington. In most of the others, including California, the voters feelings on the matter were studiously ignored.

That's not how a democratic republic operates, or at least that used to be the case.

Watcher's Council Nominations -Out Of Gas Edition

 http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QpB_9Z6ArpA/T0aeuz66aGI/AAAAAAAANSY/9S0wLHCO6aw/s400/energy+plan+1.jpg

 http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/obama-economy-jobs-debt-deficit-political-cartoon-how-green-energy-works.jpg


Welcome to the Watcher's Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the 'sphere, and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday.

Council News:



Council alum Trevor Loudon's new book, “The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress” is due out August 20th, and if you're familiar with his last one, you know you're in for a superb read.

Superbly written and well sourced, it details the real roots of the toxic alliance between progressives, communists and socialists in America and connects the dots on a great deal of what's going on today.

You can preorder “The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress” by clicking on the above icon.

Today's a special day...the birthday of our own Michael Haltman, The Political Commentator!

Actually, the big day was yesterday, but sometimes you need a little extra time to plan a proper party. Plus this way, I bet he thought I forgot.....



Michael's a tireless and prolific writer,blogger and a good friend I really value. You can always count on him to step in and make a difference when it counts, and that's an increasingly rare quality.

And in honor of his special day,  we celebrate!

Only New York's finest,a nifty raspberry swirl cheesecake from Junior's in Brooklyn will do.



And to go with, straight outta the Finger Lakes, some fine Genuine New York State Champagne, Great Western's Extra Dry:



A special birthday do for a very special person. Many more, Michael...here's to you!

This week, Ask Marion and The Pirate's Cove took advantage of my generous offer of link whorage and earned honorable mention status with some excellent articles.

You can, too! Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries.

Simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title a link to the piece you want considered along with an e-mail address ( which won't be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6PM PST in order to be considered for our honorable mention category. Then just return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week when it comes out Wednesday morning

Simple, no?

It's a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members. while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?

So,without further ado, let's see what we have this week....

Council Submissions


Honorable Mentions


Non-Council Submissions




Enjoy! And don't forget to like us on Facebook and follow us Twitter..'cause we're cool like that!

Monday, June 24, 2013

Must See - Ted Cruz Tries To Shame His Colleagues On Amnesty



Truth to power...I especially like the way he handled Chuck Schumer.

Rinos On Parade - Corker-Hoeven Amnesty Amendment Passes 67-27



No, they're not extinct.

Today, 15 Republicans voted along with every Senate Democrat to endorse the sham border security amendment cobbled together by Tennessee's Bob Corker and John Hoeven of North Dakota and end cloture.

Along with Corker and Hoeven, the roster of shame included Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Jeff Chiesa of New Jersey, Susan Collins of Maine, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Dean Heller of Nevada, Mark Kirk of Illinois, John McCain of Arizona, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Marco Rubio of Florida, and Roger Wicker of Mississippi.

Some members of this group are making noises about opposing the final bill if there are no changes, but at best you're going to see a few of them voting no as a fig leaf, by previous arrangement with the pro-amnestia forces.There's no way this doesn't pass the Senate.

So the fight to stop this now goes to the House.

As for the creatures listed above, they've obviously shown their true nature. Which is a pity, because some of them are people I've supported and admired over the years,and I've never been one to enforce rigid standards of ideological lockstep. But this is too important to ignore, and ultimately these senators have revealed their true character.

Egypt - Is The Military Planning A Coup?

 

As Egypt continues to unravel,an ominous sign came today from Egypt's army chief and defense minister General Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi.

His comments were delivered to a group of military officers and referenced the scheduled June 30th protests scheduled against Islamist Muslim Brotherhood regime of Mohamed Morsi, which the regime's supporters have vowed to 'smash'.

El-Sissi said that while the military has so far not become involved in the political turmoil, it has a responsibility to intervene and stop Egypt from "slipping into a dark tunnel of conflict, internal fighting."

He urged all parties to reach an agreement and defuse the crisis. "We have a week during which a great deal can be achieved. This is a call that is only motivated by love of the nation, its presence and future."

"Those who think that we (the military) are oblivious to the dangers that threaten the Egyptian state are mistaken. We will not remain silent while the country slips into a conflict that will be hard to control," he said.

"It is not honorable that we remain silent in the face of the terrorizing and scaring of our Egyptian compatriots. There is more honor in death than watching a single Egyptian harmed while his army is standing idly by."

Al-Sissi, who was appointed by Morsi is sending some interesting signals here.

Egypt is currently in a fiscal and societal collapse. Crime is rampant, prices are soaring on basic staples, foreign investment is non-existent, power cuts and shortages are common and unemployment has skyrocketed.

In addition, as Morsi and the Brotherhood regime become increasingly dictatorial, they are starting to lose support.

Al-Sissi is essentially saying that if things continue in the present state, the army will step in and take over again.

There are several things to consider here.

Remember that the Egyptian Army is not like our army...it's more like a state within a state. It owns private businesses, factories, property, even farmland, often staffed by army recruits who work at non-military jobs for army wages. A good part of the $1.5 billion in aid Egypt gets from us in military aid goes to fund these enterprises.

As the economy spirals out of control, the financial assets of the army are taking a huge hit.That's an important motivation behind what al-Sissi had to say. He is warning Morsi and the Brotherhood to focus less on implementing sharia and more on managing Egypt's economy.

Another interesting consideration is where President Obama stands on this.Our Islamist friendly president has always funded, enabled and supported Islamists and has never never backed any action against an Islamist regime. Has he decided it might be better to cut Morsi and the Brotherhood loose and have the army take over rather than allow the Brotherhood to fail so dismally?

Stay tuned.

Fear And Loathing In DC - The Gang Of Eight's Amnesty Bill Is A Disaster

 https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/p480x480/379279_484968264874202_1763382118_n.jpg

Today at 5:30 PM, the United States Senate will vote on an important part of the Gang of Eight Amnesty bill, the Corker-Hoeven amendment. Majority Leader Harry Reid is rushing the nearly 1200 page bill through even though the Senate has only had a chance to look at it for a mere 72 hours.

When you actually go over this bill submitted under the guise of 'immigration reform', you realize how awful it really is.

The language of the bill reminds me of the the Affordable Care Act, (AKA Obamacare) in that it's filled with (a)obtuse, dense language that clues us in that it is deliberately deceptive (b)glosses over the real issues involved and (c) is absolutely filled with waivers, exemptions and exceptions left to the sole discretion of political appointees and language like 'the Secretary, in the Secretary’s sole and unreviewable discretion, may waive...'

'Sole and unreviewable discretion'? Just imagine what an Obama appointee like Janet Napolitano is going to do with that.

They denied it for a long time, but the bill's proponents have finally admitted that this is an amnesty bill, and as even Senator Marco Rubio admitted back when he was trying to get elected with Tea Party support, the 'path to citizenship' rhetoric is just a euphemism for exactly that.

If the estimates on illegal migration into the U.S. are correct, we're talking about 11.5 million people, except that when we include chain migration and family unification (which the bill doesn't prohibit) we're probably talking about 25 million or more. But let's just talk about the estimated 11.5 million whom are here for now. Anyone who was in the U.S. prior to 2012 qualifies, but since the bill doesn't call for any definitive real proof, fraud is going to be rampant.

The entire concept of amnesty is an interesting one, as is the idea of terming it immigration reform.

It basically turns the entire idea of immigration inside out.

Rather than it being a privilege extended by a sovereign nation to people it decides to welcome legally to fill its own needs, amnesty makes it a right, an entitlement.It's no accident that many people in the amnesty lobby refer to themselves as 'immigrant rights activists'.

The obvious that's unsaid given the demographic makeup of the vast majority of illegal migrants is that it's a right because this is supposedly 'stolen' Mexican land, something only groups like MeCha and La Raza say openly. But the context is obvious.

If that's the actual argument, that America has no sovereign rights over a part of its territory the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo notwithstanding, fine. But that's a separate argument.

The idea of 'immigration reform' is likewise interesting. Real immigration reform might involve cutting some of the immensely complicated and expensive red tape involved when an American citizen falls in love with a foreign national and wants to bring their spouse home to live, or when an American corporation wants to import a foreign scientist or technical expert to work here.Or creating a points system based on needed skills, English proficiency, ties to America or the willingness of an entrepreneur to bring financial capital to invest to start a business.

Nothing much is going to be 'reformed' for the 4.6 million legal immigrant applicants to America stuck in those situations. No one wants to discus how fair it is to give the 11.5 million people who are here illegally priority over the suckers who decided to follow the law and come here legally. Instead, we're going to create special rules that apply to no other immigrants but a select group largely made up of one demographic who merit this special treatment strictly for political purposes.

A potential legal immigrant from Europe or Asia would hardly be unjustified in calling that unfair and racist. It is. One of my correspondents, an English speaking Dutch software engineer with 3 inches of degrees after his name,  over a decade's worth of experience,  and a totally  clean  record finally gave up after spending a year and thousands of dollars trying to jump through the hoops ICE put in front of him and emigrated with his family to Israel, where they jumped at the chance and slashed red tape to get him. In America people like my engineer friend  will go to the back of the line behind an unskilled laborer from Sinaloa or Nuevo Leon with limited or non-existent English and an 8th grade education. The current amnesty bill would exacerbate this situation even more.

I've had some experience in conducting negotiations where there are diverse views involved. Here's a fairly ironclad rule; when people's goals are the same but their ideas on what mechanics to use to achieve them are different, consensus is usually attainable. But when their actual goals are different, actual consensus is excruciatingly difficult, and what you normally get instead is game playing, lies and deception.

What we're seeing here is the second scenario.

The Democrats have made a great deal of noise about their supposed goal of 'bringing people out of the shadows', 'immigrant rights',   'fixing our broken borders' or our 'broken immigration system', increased border security and a 'path to citizenship'  that will supposedly revitalize our economy.

They're lying shamelessly.

That's exactly  the same sort of thing the same sort of people were saying back in 1986, when a prior amnesty was passed during the Reagan Administration. Then, we had 2.7 million illegal immigrants and the problem was supposed to be solved with a one time fix. Less than three decades later, we have almost ten times as many. And Democrats have obstructed any form of border enforcement vigorously during that time.

Legislation was actually passed during President George W. Bush's second term mandating the building of a 700 mile fence on our southern  border. Only 36 miles were completed before  the Democrats took over congress in 2006..after which the project was shelved for lack of funding, even though funds had already been appropriated.

Yet the mantra being recited now with the Gang of Eight bill is that we're going to have enforcement, that this is going to be a definitive settlement of the problem, that now we're finally going to really control our borders.

 

Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who was in Washington when the original amnesty was passed made an interesting and unfortunately overlooked floor statement on the Senate floor that gives us a good look at how and why that happened as well as a prediction for what's likely to happen in the future:

In 1982, I told my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee that I wanted to do the right thing for the United States. I said, “The real issue here is what is best for United States citizens. In trying to maintain that perspective, I have come to the conclusion through the course of attending many hearings on this issue, that increased border and interior enforcement along with employer sanctions and a secure worker eligibility identity system is necessary to regain control of our borders.” This is a philosophy that continues to guide me today.

But, I expressed my concern with the legalization component at the time. I echoed the recommendations of the Select Commission on Immigration. That commission said a legalization should 1) be consistent with U.S. interests; and 2) the program should not encourage further undocumented migration. The Commission believed that a legalization program should not begin until new enforcement measures have been instituted. The commission knew then – as I did and as I know now – that “without more effective enforcement, legalization could serve as a stimulus to further illegal entry.” Those are the words of the Commission. You see, I didn’t think permanent residency should be granted until we had a worker eligibility system. I offered an amendment on that point in 1982, but it failed.

The Judiciary Committee and the full Senate passed a bill in 1982, but it didn’t pass the House of Representatives. We tried again in the next Congress. The Senate passed a bill in 1983, and the House followed in 1984. We convened a conference committee in 1984, but Walter Mondale came out opposed. So, we adjourned for the elections and failed to finalize a bill that year. We returned in 1985 to pass our bill again. That year, Senator Simpson included a provision to trigger the amnesty program only after enforcement measures to curtail illegal immigration were in place.

Over the years, many members offered amendments to water down the enforcement provisions in the Immigration Reform and Control Act. There was a lot of opposition to employer sanctions, especially by Senator Kennedy. He wanted – in his words – “criminal penalties to be based only upon injunctive finding of pattern or practice.” He tried to sunset the employer sanctions. Senator Kennedy also fought hard to move the legalization cut-off date from 1980 to 1982 so that more people could benefit from the amnesty.

The 1986 bill was supposed to be a 3-legged stool – control of illegal immigration, a legalization program, and reform of legal immigration. We authorized $422 million to carry out the requirements of the bill, and created a special fund for states to reimburse their costs.{...}

Unfortunately, the same principles from 1986 are being discussed today. Legalize now, enforce later. But, it’s clear that philosophy doesn’t work. Proponents of amnesty today argue that we didn’t get it right in 1986. I agree that the enforcement mechanisms in 1986 could have been stronger. That’s why they need to be strong this time around.

But, I’m already concerned that some will attempt to water down the principles that have been put forth on enforcement measures. President Obama doesn’t seem to favor triggers. The senior Senator from New York said – just last week — that border security wasn’t going to stop legalization. In his words, he said, “We’re not using border security as an excuse or block to the path of citizenship.” Advocacy groups are already talking about ensuring that a border security commission doesn’t stand in the way or have veto authority over a legalization program.


Get the picture? Once this passes it will be 1986 all over again. Except this time, it will be even worse because of the increased numbers involved.

Fiscally, the amnesty bill is an absolute nightmare, and no real fiscal conservative ought to support it for an instant..

While U.S. law actually prohibits anyone getting a Green Card if they're likely to be a public charge (Section 212a-4), in practice this is never enforced, and roughly half of current green card holders have household incomes below the federal poverty line and receive welfare benefits.

In spite of what Senator Rubio and others are telling you, there's no way to prevent the recipients of amnesty from accessing these  entitlements and benefits, including ObamaCare and perhaps there shouldn't be. After all, if you're going to permit people to settle legally in your country in the first place, there's no humane basis to deny them entitlements like medical care or AFDC if they're available and they qualify.

The courts have already ruled on the question of legal residents and social welfare benefits at the state level (including the federal subsidies) and the first formerly illegal alien who takes this to court if he or she is denied benefits will win handily.Moreover, as Senator Jeff Sessions reveals, the bill has a number of loopholes that will allow amnesty recipients to access the benefits even before receiving a green card.

The impact on the already obscene cost of ObamaCare is one example. If we look at just  the estimated number of 11 million aliens ( and remember,it will eventually end up being more than twice that amount with family unification and chain migration)who will now qualify, a cost of nearly $100 billion annually can be added to the rapidly rising cost of ObamaCare, since most of them will qualify for the full $9,000 subsidy, and the Affordable Care Act says that they will all be eligible for coverage immediately. And to add insult to injury, part of the taxes to cover that will be paid by legal immigrants who spent considerable time and money to enter America legally. SSI, Social Security, the Food Stamps program and other entitlements are similarly affected, as is both the cost and quality of the public schools as we've seen in California and other states with high levels of illegal alien populations.

There are reliable estimates that amnesty for the illegal migrants here will add a whopping $6 trillion to the national debt, a figure I personally think is understated because no one can accurately guess the fiscal impact of chain migration and family unification.While legalizing illegal migrants will add an estimated $3.1 trillion in taxes over time, the social welfare costs will overwhelm any economic benefits. In fact, many illegal migrants already 'pay' taxes of a sort, and how that works out will give you a good idea of what we're in for if amnesty goes into effect.

Many illegal migrants simply obtain a TIN (tax ID number) from the IRS, once known as an EIN (employer identification number) and limited to business owners with employees but now available to anyone for the asking.All an illegal alien needs to do is obtain a TIN, use a bogus social security number for work purposes,  simply tell his tax preparer to write a letter stating that all earnings credited to the social security number in question actually refer to the TIN, and then apply for an Earned Income credit.  Fraud is rampant.

Another frequently used tactic is to claim an "additional child tax credit" for children who might not live in the U.S. or might not even exist. Last year, the IRS paid out an estimated $4.2 billion for bogus child credits alone:



Border security is being held out as a huge carrot in order to shove this monstrosity through. Chew on that for a second and think it over.Actually enforcing our immigrations laws is now being held out by Democrats and some Republicans as a political concession!

But they're not actually conceding anything. Aside from any provisions for  securing the border being deliberately vague the reality is that this bill actually erodes border security.

For instance,  the background check provisions of the bill no requirement that amnesty applicants actually provide government-issued documentation proving who they say they are.Section 2101(b) makes it easy for anyone in the U.S. illegally to simply invent a new name out of thin air and use that name when applying for the amnesty. Immigration officials have absolutely no leverage to force the alien to disclose his real identity, and given the Obama Administration's stance will probably face considerable pressure to simply accept whatever name they're given without question.. The alien gains a brand new legit photo-ID issued by the federal government that gives credibility to his or her fake identity, gets legal immigration status and the ability to travel outside of the United States, even if it involves taking a jaunt to say, Pakistan or Iran to do a little specialized training and then return to the U.S. to put it into practice. It's a terrorist's dream come true.

Far-fetched? Unlikely? Two of the illegal aliens who got amnesty in 1986 turned out to be Mahmoud “The Red” Abouhalima and his brother Mohammed. Both participated in the first World Trade Center Bombing in 1993 . Mahmoud was a ringleader in the attack who used his new legal status to travel abroad to Afghanistan for terrorist training...and by the way, even though both brothers were members of the Egyptian terrorist group Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, they passed background check.

The Tsarnev brothers of course didn't even need amnesty. Neither did some of the men who were in the advanced planning stages of a plot  to attack Fort Dix and kill American soldiers  in 2007.

To give you an idea of how bogus the claims of border enforcement are, under Section 245i, the bill actually allows illegal aliens who have already been deported from the United States to return and be covered by the amnesty, and Sections 2101(c)(7)(C)(i) and 2211(b)(5)(C)(i) actually allows aliens who already have deportation orders filed against them and are still in the U.S as fugitives to get amnesty as well. The numbers on this latter category alone amount to something in the neighborhood of three quarters of a million people.

Actually, even illegal aliens convicted of a number of fairly egregious crimes get amnesty as well. 
Senator John Cornyn's relatively mild amendment on border security called for denying amnesty to illegal aliens convicted of serious misdemeanors, such as domestic violence, aggravated assault, child abuse, violation of a protection order, and drunk driving.

The senate voted it down.

The amnesty even applies to aliens arrested for a crime but not yet convicted, formalizing Secretary Napolitano's DACA directive of June 2012 to allow them to become eligible.

We don't even have, at this point, a functioning entry-exit system to track people whom overstay their visas, something Congress has been 'working on' for 17 years.

This track record coupled with the bill's loose language on 'triggers', 'goals' and border enforcement in general should give you a clear idea of how unserious the idea of border control is with the bill's proponents.

The highly touted compromise of the recent Corker-Hoeven amendment is a disgraceful head fake designed to allow Senate Republicans to go home and posture about how they voted for tougher border security, while it actually does nothing concrete about it until all of those undocumented Democrats are nice and legalized. Even the main talking point of the bill, the 20,000 extra border patrol agents that are supposedly going to be deployed on the border aren't going to be hired until enough funds are raised from the fines illegal aliens are supposedly going to pay. Since the majority of them are going to plead poverty and be excused, just like the border fence it is yet another commitment that will simply be ignored.

As a matter of fact, the new, improved bill with the Corker-Hoeven amendment directly states that DHS head Janet Napolitano  or any future DHS head can simply ignore building any fence at all. From page 35, line 24 of the new bill:

Notwithstanding paragraph (1), nothing in this subsection shall require the Secretary to install fencing, or infrastructure that directly results from the installation of such fencing, in a particular location along the Southern border, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain effective control over the Southern border at such location.

Border security? Ho ho! A number of members of the U.S. senate could have a successful career doing standup.

When it comes down to border enforcement, the simple question boils down to this: for strictly partisan political purposes, most Democrats have ignored current immigration laws when it comes to enforcement. What makes anyone think that's going to magically change? In California, for instance, does anyone think that Governor Brown or perhaps a future Governor like ex-MeCha member and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is going to cooperate with any federal enforcement measures or laws any more than they do now?

It's obvious what the Democrat's real goal is - a reliable supply of low information voters they can bribe to keep them in power. Nothing else matters. And they will be voters much quicker than we're being told.

Aside from the fact that a number of non-citizen migrants already vote fraudulently, especially in blue states with no voter ID laws, you can rest assured that if this new amnesty bill is passed there will be a huge push from the Left to get them into the booths as soon as possible, legislation or no legislation.

Can't you just hear the president or Senator Schumer whining, 'they're living here, they're on a path to citizenship, why can't they vote? Are we that kind of country'?

Back in 2002, a left wing amnesty activist and political scientist named Ruy Teixeira wrote a book entitled "The Emerging Democratic Majority" in which he peddled the notion that the Latino immigration that had already occurred would make the GOP a permanent minority party and establish a Democrat ruled European-style Socialist welfare state. He was subjected to a certain amount of smug ridicule at the time because the Republicans went on to take solid control of Congress in the midterms and even to re-elect George W. Bush in 2004.But as it turns out, he was merely premature. Even Ruy Teixeira in his most tumescent nocturnal fantasies probably never imagined that the Republicans would help make his vision reality by going along with importing the majority he envisioned.

The Republicans shilling for this don't even make sense anymore. Here's Bill O'Reilly, a supposed 'conservative' mouthing what's become the GOP establishment's mantra in the face of all facts to the contrary, And he's by no means alone:



You see, the GOP's consultant class who have successfully lost two straight national elections they should easily have won have convinced a large part of the Republican establishment that there's a Hispanic tidal wave coming and they had better forget about any principles they have or even what's good for the country, get with the program and out pander Democrats if they want to stay in power and win elections. No matter what.

Politicians like Senator Marco Rubio continue to talk out of both sides of their mouths about why going along with something President Obama and the Left are absolutely salivating over is somehow smart politics, because they're essentially dishonest about what their endgame is. When you take a serious look at the actual numbers from the last election and think about what's actually being proposed here, that much becomes obvious.

What the GOP establishment wants isn't 'border control', or to 'fix' anything.In fact, the recent Congressional Budget Office analysis says that amnestia at best will only cut illegal migration by 25%. What they really want is to cut themselves loose from the Republican conservative base they despise anyway, and do their best to make them politically powerless in order to court what actually amounts to 3.5% of the electorate, most of it already located in solid Blue States.

And in some cases, they're simply working for special interests who want a continuous flow of cheap labor. Portions of the bill have been specifically engineered as bribes and gimmees with that in mind.

Is the problem of of our porous borders and illegal migration that we've let fester for so long something that could be handled in a humane, fair way that would actually benefit the country? Of course it is, and I'll detail some of those solutions in a subsequent article. But since  that's not the goal of the Ruling Class politicians of either party who are pushing this disgraceful excuse for legislation, that's not what we're getting.

Oddly enough as this gets down to the wire, a lot more legal Hispanic immigrants than you might think understand that how devastating this is going to be to them  if it gets pushed through. They understand that it's a housekeeper, a nanny, a delivery driver or an elder care giver earning between $35,000 and $40,000 or so per year with benefits that's going to have to compete with one of the unskilled newly legalized 'immigrants' willing to work for 40% less with worse working conditions.

They're the ones who are going to be competing with these newly legal immigrants and the people they bring over through chain migration for affordable housing. It's their children, not those of the Ruling Class who are going to have  their children  stuck in classrooms with 50 kids to a teacher in dysfunctional public schools that struggle to teach at even a basic level.

What is being proposed here is an unjust, race based, fiscally unsound mess.It is frankly un-American.

This is 'hope and change' none of us were even asked if we wanted.

Any congressman that votes for this of whatever party is not only unworthy of public trust and public office, but should be shunned, insulted and jeered at in public on the streets of America as the self-seeking, dishonest scum he or she is.

 Ya basta. Enough.

You can call Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 to contact your congressperson directly. Or tweet them. I'd pay particular attention to the ones that are only sitting in the Senate because of those nasty conservatives and Tea Party activists they despise. And if this passes the Senate, be prepared to put the heat on the House..because Boehner won't. 2014 is just around the corner :

Alabama

Sen. Richard Shelby
@SenShelbyPress

Sen. Jeff Sessions
@SenatorSessions

Alaska

Sen. Mark Begich
@SenatorBegich

Sen. Lisa Murkowski
@lisamurkowski

Arizona

Sen. John McCain
@SenJohnMcCain

Sen. Jeff Flake
@JeffFlake

Arkansas

Sen. John Boozman
@JohnBoozman

Sen. Mark Pryor 
@SenMarkPryor

California

Sen. Barbara Boxer
@SenatorBoxer

Sen. Dianne Feinstein
@SenFeinstein

Colorado

Sen. Michael Bennet 
@SenBennetCO

Sen. Mark Udall
@MarkUdall

Connecticut

Sen. Chris Murphy 
@ChrisMurphyCT

Sen. Richard Blumenthal 
@SenBlumenthal

Delaware

Sen. Tom Carper
@SenatorCarper

Sen. Chris Coons
@SenCoonsOffice

Florida

Sen. Bill Nelson 
@SenBillNelson

Sen. Marco Rubio
@marcorubio

Georgia

Sen. Saxby Chambliss 
@SaxbyChambliss

Sen. Johnny Isakson
@SenatorIsakson

Hawaii

Sen. Mazie Hirono
@maziehirono

Sen. Brian Schatz 
@SenBrianSchatz

Idaho

Sen. Mike Crapo 
@MikeCrapo

Sen. Jim Risch 
@SenatorRisch

Illinois

Sen. Dick Durbin
@SenatorDurbin

Sen. Mark Kirk
@SenatorKirk

Indiana

Sen. Dan Coats
@SenDanCoats

Sen. Joe Donnelly 
@SenDonnelly

Iowa

Sen. Chuck Grassley 
@ChuckGrassley

Sen. Tom Harkin 
@SenatorHarkin

Kansas

Sen. Jerry Moran 
@JerryMoran
Sen. Pat Roberts 
@SenPatRoberts

Kentucky

Sen. Mitch McConnell
@McConnellPress

Sen. Rand Paul 
@SenRandPaul

Louisiana

Sen. Mary Landrieu
@SenLandrieu

Sen. David Vitter
@DavidVitter

Maine

Sen. Susan Collins
@SenatorCollins

Sen. Angus S. King, Jr.
@SenAngusKing

Maryland

Sen. Ben Cardin
@SenatorCardin

Sen. Barbara Mikulski
@SenatorBarb

Massachusetts

Sen. William “Mo” Cowan
@SenMoCowan

Sen. Elizabeth Warren 
@SenWarren

Michigan

Sen. Carl Levin
@SenCarlLevin

Sen. Debbie Stabenow 
@StabenowPress

Minnesota

Sen. Al Franken 
@alfranken

Sen. Amy Klobuchar 
@amyklobuchar

Mississippi

Sen. Thad Cochran 
@SenThadCochran

Sen. Roger Wicker 
@SenatorWicker

Missouri

Sen. Roy Blunt 
@RoyBlunt

Sen. Claire McCaskill
@McCaskillOffice

Nebraska

Sen. Deb Fische
@SenatorFischer

Sen. Mike Johanns 
@Mike_Johanns

Nevada

Sen. Dean Heller 
@SenDeanHeller

Sen. Harry Reid 
@SenatorReid

New Hampshire

Sen. Kelly Ayotte 
@KellyAyotte

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen 
@SenatorShahee

New Jersey

Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg
@FrankLautenberg

Sen. Robert Menendez 
@SenatorMenendez
New Mexico

Sen. Martin Heinrich 
@MartinHeinrich

Sen. Tom Udall
@SenatorTomUdall

New York

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand 
@SenGillibrand

Sen. Chuck Schumer 
@ChuckSchumer

North Carolina

Sen. Richard Burr  
@SenatorBurr

Sen. Kay Hagan 
@SenatorHagan

North Dakota

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp 
@SenatorHeitkamp

Sen. John Hoeven 
@SenJohnHoeven

Ohio

Sen. Sherrod Brown 
@SenSherrodBrown

Sen. Rob Portman
@robportman

Oklahoma

Sen. Tom Coburn M.D.
@TomCoburn

Sen. James Inhofe
@InhofePress

Oregon

Sen. Jeff Merkley
@SenJeffMerkley

Sen. Ron Wyden
@RonWyden

Pennsylvania

Sen. Bob Casey 
@SenBobCasey

Sen. Pat Toomey 
@SenToomey

Rhode Island

Sen. Jack Reed 
@SenJackReed

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse 
@SenWhitehouse

South Carolina

Sen. Lindsey Graham 
@GrahamBlog

Sen. Tim Scott 
@SenatorTimScott

South Dakota

Sen. Tim Johnson 
@SenJohnsonSD

Sen. John Thune 
@SenJohnThune

Tennessee

Sen. Lamar Alexander
@SenAlexander

Sen. Bob Corker 
@SenBobCorker

Texas

Sen. John Cornyn 
@JohnCornyn

Sen. Ted Cruz 
@SenTedCruz

Utah

Sen. Orrin Hatch
@SenOrrinHatch

Sen. Mike Lee 
@SenMikeLee

Vermont

Sen. Patrick Leahy 
@SenatorLeahy

Sen. Bernie Sanders 
@SenSanders

Virginia

Sen. Tim Kaine 
@SenKaineOffice

Sen. Mark Warner 
@MarkWarner

Washington

Sen. Maria Cantwell
@CantwellPress

Sen. Patty Murray 
@PattyMurray

West Virginia

Sen. Joe Manchin 
@Sen_JoeManchin
Sen. Jay Rockefeller 
@SenRockefeller

Wisconsin

Sen. Tammy Baldwin 
@tammybaldwin

Sen. Ron Johnson
@SenRonJohnson

Wyoming

Sen. John Barrasso 
@SenJohnBarrasso

Sen. Mike Enzi 
@SenatorEn