« September 2007 | Main | November 2007 »
The ADL's definition of "hate" and "anti-immigrant" can't be trusted. (ALIPAC, others)
The Anti-Defamation League - which apparently at one time did some good, but which is now a far-left Gramscian enforcer and defender of illegal activity - has released a new report entitled "Immigrants Targeted: Extremist Rhetoric Moves into the Mainstream" [1]:
A closer look at the public record reveals that many ostensibly mainstream anti-illegal immigration organizations – including those who testified before Congress or frequently appeared on news programs – promote virulent anti-Hispanic and anti-immigrant rhetoric. Some groups have fostered links with extremist groups.
They list several groups, but as will be shown, their definition of "hate" just can't be trusted. For example, consider this claim:
[Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee/ALIPAC president William Gheen] [2] also inflames anti-immigrant sentiment by falsely asserting that foreigners bring disease into the nation. During a June 2007 radio interview, he said, "We've got bedbugs back in all, almost all of our 58 [sic] states. We've got TB on the rise, we've got hepatitis, we've got HIV, we've got diseases like Chagas disease, which is a horrifying disease, but also, much like TB, is very, very difficult to treat at all, and it's coming in because of the, the lack of enforcement of our immigration laws and, and the end result is Americans are suffering, Americans are dying."
The ADL's claim that foreigners don't bring diseases into the U.S. is obviously false. And, let's turn to this May 23, 1989 article:
The rising wave of immigration from Central and South America increases the likelihood that Chagas' disease may become more common in the United States, experts said, unless blood banks routinely reject donors born in Central or South America or test their blood.
The source? Why none other than the scare mongerers at the New York Times (link). Finding other sources discussing those various diseases and immigration is left as an exercise. And, of course, immigrants at Ellis Island were checked for diseases, and there are laws on the books regulating immigrants and visitors who have various types of diseases.
Now, it's about to get ironic. Returning to the ADL:
At an August 2007 rally in North Carolina, Gheen stated, "Illegal aliens in this country have set up ethnic cleansing zones, ethnic cleansing zones where if you walk past the wrong sign post, the invisible line, you’re under the threat of death."
Then, let's look at this January 20, 2007 article:
Prudhomme was murdered because he identified himself as black (he was in fact mixed-race) in a neighborhood occupied by one of the many Latino street gangs in Los Angeles County. Incredibly, even though these gangs are fundamentally criminal enterprises interested mainly in money, gang experts inside and outside the government say that they are now engaged in a campaign of "ethnic cleansing" -- racial terror that is directed solely at African Americans.
The source? Brentin Mock, from the Intelligence Report of the Southern Poverty Law Center [3] [4].
(The SPLC is, of course, another group that likes to throw the "hate" charge around; perhaps the ADL could call the SPLC a hate group, and the SPLC could respond by calling the ADL a hate group, and then the could both lock arms in battle and fall into the abyss.)
Even the Los Angeles Times has noted something similar (link):
Authorities said the gang specifically tried to eliminate rival African American gangs in South L.A. and the Florence-Firestone area in an effort to "cleanse" the neighborhood. In doing so, they mistakenly harassed and attacked innocent African American residents, according to the indictment.
As has the Guardian (link):
It is a city of violence as a new race war escalates between new Hispanic gangs and older black groups, each trying to ethnically cleanse the other.
If you see any reporters quoting the ADL on this issue, please send them this link.
11/06/07 UPDATE: Janet Murguia helps us discover yet another misleading statement from the ADL; see that link.
And, from the Los Angeles Times' "Latin American scourge turning up in U.S. immigrants/In L.A., nation's first clinic opens to treat deadly insect-borne Chagas disease" (link):
A Los Angeles County hospital has opened the first clinic in the country devoted to studying and treating Chagas disease, a deadly parasitic illness that has long been the leading cause of heart failure in Latin America and is now being seen in immigrant communities in the United States... ...By the end of October, 253 people in 30 states had tested positive for the antibody, according to data compiled by the American Association of Blood Banks. The prevalence nationwide is estimated to be about 1 in 30,000 donors, and about 1 in 7,000 in Los Angeles, said Dr. Susan Stramer, executive scientific officer for the American Red Cross... ...Most donors who tested positive since screening began this year emigrated from high-risk areas, sometimes years ago, or were the children of such immigrants, said the Red Cross' Stramer in an e-mail. But in nine cases still under investigation, Stramer said, infection may have been transmitted by insects in the United States...
[1] adl.org/PresRele/CvlRt_32/5154_32.htm
[2] I'm not a member because I'm not a joiner. I also don't think their occasional highlighting of illegal aliens and crime is the right way to fight the issue. However, I don't think they deserve the treatment the ADL gives them.
[3] alternet.org/story/46855/
[4] splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=722 (same article as [2])
Posted to Immigration2007b at 07:40 PM
U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty heads to Senate vote: call Senators and tell them no
The United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty has been voted 17-4 out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, meaning it will now be voted on by the Senate; when exactly isn't known.
See the brief introduction from Sen. James Inhofe here, and see the first link for background information. And, please call your Senators and tell them you oppose the treaty.
Posted to Politics at 04:33 PM
Hillary Clinton now supports driver's licenses for illegal aliens
Adam Nagourney of the New York Times offers this:Hillary Rodham Clinton offered support today for Gov. Eliot Spitzer's effort to award New York driver's licenses to illegal immigrants...Apparently, those advisors think that embracing a position that three-quarters or so of Americans oppose is better than being seen as someone who evades questions.
"Senator Clinton supports governors like Governor Spitzer who believe they need such a measure to deal with the crisis caused by this administration's failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform,'" her campaign said.
Mrs. Clinton's aides said her statement was intended to signal that she broadly supported Mr. Spitzer's goal of awarding driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants...
...Mrs. Clinton's advisers said that she had not studied either plan, and was not specifically endorsing either of them...
Of course, Nagourney and the other MSM hacks won't now point out that reform would not only not fix the issue, it would make it worse.
Posted to Immigration_dls at 03:56 PM
Hillary's double-dodge on illegal aliens driver's licenses; +, go for it, Dems!
One perhaps overlooked part of Hillary Clinton's wishy-washy non-answer to the question concerning driver's licenses for illegal aliens concerns this:
[New York governor Eliot Spitzer is] making an honest effort to [bring illegal aliens "out of the shadows"]. We should have passed immigration reform.
The "reform" she mentions wouldn't solve the problem. "Reform" will send a loud message to millions and millions around the world that our immigration laws mean nothing, and they'll respond by trying to come here illegally.
So, even if "reform" were to pass, New York would still have plenty of new illegal aliens (encouraged to come here by "reform") as well as those who were there before reform but who weren't covered by it for one reason or another or who didn't want to take advantage of it. Obviously, if we had real debates she would have been called on her implication that "reform" would completely resolved the issue rather than making it far worse.
On a related note, Hillary has found a defender in none other than Jonathan Singer of MyDD.com [1]. Since that site has deleted a few comments I left there I'm not going to bother helping them understand how they're wrong, but I sincerely wish them the best of luck:
No doubt this isn't the most popular move at this juncture. But with a bit of explanation and political capital (and real capital) invested in making the argument, I think there are a lot of people -- particularly the large proportion of Americans in favor of a path to legalization or citizenship for illegal immigrants -- who could be swayed. And even for those whose positions are particularly hardened at this point so that they would not be swayed, it's not clear to me that the issue is salient enough to make them change their mind about a presidential election when other issues like Iraq, Iran, the economy and healthcare continue to loom large.
No. Please. Don't do it. Supporting driver's licenses for illegal aliens - and doing so in a loud way involving lots of political capital - is the thing that I most fear. It would drive millions of Americans to vote Democrat. No. Please. Don't do it.
I also note that past Singer posts at MyDD have been sponsored by AFSCME [2] and SEIU [3]. No one appears to have picked up the tab for his brilliant advice above.
[1] mydd.com/story/2007/10/31/141810/86
[2] mydd.com/story/2007/2/21/14555/2059
[3] mydd.com/story/2007/3/24/115150/071
Posted to Immigration_dls at 02:38 PM
Mike Huckabee defends Mexico consulate deal (businesses agreed to pay Mexico's bills; law violated?)
Mike Huckabee is the new establishment favorite GOP presidential contender, and one reason is probably because he'd keep the cheap labor flowing. In fact, he encouraged Mexico to build a consulate in his state with the obvious intent of providing a workforce for Arkansas' low-wage employers. Jerome Corsi asked him to defend his actions:A lingering controversy over the role former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee played in establishing a Mexican consulate office in Little Rock financed by taxpayers and local businesses continues to follow the Republican presidential candidate's campaign, even as he enjoys a surge in polls.Others mentioned include his then-economic development adviser Robert Trevino, who was also an official with the League of United Latin American Citizens. Trevino later was appointed commissioner of Arkansas Rehabilitation Services; they leased space to Mexico in a state office building at $1 per year.
Critics in Arkansas contend Huckabee worked with some of the state's most prominent and politically powerful businesses to draw illegal immigrants to the state to accept low-paying jobs.
Huckabee strongly denied the charges in a telephone interview with WND yesterday...
And:
A July 21, 2006, memo from Trevino's office also documents that a consortium of Arkansas corporations had agreed to "support the consular presence" during the first three years, including what appears to be the costs of building for Mexico a permanent consular facility in Little Rock.Much more at the link. And, I urge everyone to go to the Huckster's campaign appearances and ask him this question:
UPDATE: "Legality of Huckabee's Mexican consulate deal questioned" has more, including the possibility that the scheme might have violated the law:
Ark. Code Ann. Section 22-2-114(C)(i) provides: "After July 1, 1975, no state agency shall enter into or renew or otherwise negotiate a lease between itself as lessor or lessee and a nongovernmental or other government lessor or lessee."And:
"Even more offensive, there was nothing in the lease or other agreements that would have prevented the Mexican consulate from providing legal assistance to illegal aliens," [Arkansas attorney Chip Sexton] told WND. "We have information that the Mexican consulate operating out of the Arkansas Rehabilitation Facility was providing legal assistance even to Mexican illegal aliens who were accused of committing violent crimes in Arkansas."
Posted to Immigration2007b at 12:03 PM
Why the debates are like Soviet puppet shows, Part #3832 (John Edwards, Democrats, Drexel)
An example of just how much of a public disservice the presidential "debates" have been is offered in John Edwards' answers to a couple questions from NBC News' Brian Williams at last night's Democratic debate at Drexel University in Philadelphia (link, direct link).
Williams asked this:
Senator Edwards, should there be a bottomless well of federal dollars for people who knowingly live in areas of this country that are disaster-prone to rebuild their homes if lost in a disaster?
Edwards first responds by saying the "national community" should be there for victims; in other words, he said nothing. Then, he launched into the speech part of his presentation, discussing his trips to New Orleans, federal contracts, etc. He didn't answer the question, so Williams' follow-up was this:
But does smarter mean any limits? Let's just take 20 seconds more here -- from Malibu to the Outer Banks down to Florida -- should there be unlimited federal authority...
Edwards once again doesn't answer the question, only saying that there should be limits. Obviously, everyone knows there are always going to be limits, and what we need is a grown-up discussion of where those limits are and tangible examples of what policies the candidates would push in disaster-prone areas. And, if they've already supported such policies, then the flaws in their existing policies need to be pointed out.
Are we to believe that Brian Williams is so naive that he thought Edwards was going to outright answer such a weak, non-specific question as he asked? Is he completely incompetent? Or was he basically just a set-up man, giving the candidates the intros to their speeches?
A real debate would have involved things such as hypothetical situations and would have involved Edwards' previous statements and actions in this regard. Surely, NBC has dozens of researchers available and has access to people at think tanks who spend all day thinking about these issues. Surely, they could have combined the two to come up with real questions about this issue. The only honest reason I can think of them to avoid that level of debate is time constraints, but that won't wash: time could have been made to delve into one or two topics if they actually wanted to.
Posted to Politics at 10:11 AM
Spitzer supporter: "You made me make a fool out of myself" (details on his switch)
This article (link) provides the insider details on how and why Eliot Spitzer "caved" and decided to only give a limited driver's license to illegal aliens. A taste:To try to smooth some of the anger, Mr. Spitzer invited [State Senator Ruben Diaz Sr.] and a half-dozen other lawmakers, most of them Hispanic and defenders of the original plan, to an Upper East Side diner on Sunday morning to explain his decision.
Feelings were frayed, and the meeting grew emotional. At one point, Mr. Spitzer asked Mr. Diaz to lower his voice because they were in a public place.
"You made me make a fool out of myself," Mr. Diaz told the governor...
Posted to Immigration_dls at 09:21 PM
New York Times to Eliot Spitzer: die on the driver's licenses for illegal aliens hill
Another day, another New York Times immigration editorial. This time, they're wrong about DLs for IAs in "Governor Spitzer Retreats" (link). They wanted him to be a good soldier in the NYT's war for illegal immigration and stick to the original plan no matter how much it hurt him:Gov. Eliot Spitzer has confronted the most intense public criticism of his political career - and caved. Not so long ago, Mr. Spitzer was doing the right and brave thing, planning to offer driver's licenses to qualified but undocumented immigrants. The plan was inherently fair and would have made the state and its roads safer. Unfortunately, it also made Mr. Spitzer the target of some very nasty rhetoric from his political opponents, while his allies offered mostly weak-kneed support...
[...blather and stuffing deleted...]
Governor Spitzer's pivot from his difficult stand on driver's licenses is a disappointment. The way he swiftly made, and then unmade, this decision is unsettling. It revives questions about whether this rookie governor seeks enough wise counsel and then listens to it. It leaves us wondering whether Mr. Spitzer has the willpower to remain focused on his better plans and better instincts in the future.
Posted to Immigration_dls at 09:18 PM
Hillary Clinton: soft on driver's licenses for illegal aliens (Obama supports it)
I'll replace the following with a transcript when it's available, but from tonight's Democratic debate:[Hillary Clinton says:] [Eliot Spitzer] is trying to make up for the failure of the Bush Administration to address illegal immigration. He's filling a vaccuum... We need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform."UPDATE: The exchange starts on page 20. Chris Dodd is actually stronger against this then I would have given him credit for:
Only Dodd thinks that illegal immigrants should not have driver's licenses.
Hillary refuses to say she supports it, but says she understands why Spitzer is doing it.
Dodd tries to go after her, and seems to succeed. "But what is the identification if someone runs into you today?" She says, "It makes a lot of sense. What is a governor supposed to do? We have failed, and George W. Bush has failed to address this issue."
Clinton: Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do...
(Unknown): Wait a minute...
Clinton: And we have failed. We have failed.
Dodd: No, no, no. You said -- you said yes...
Clinton: No.
Dodd: ... you thought it made sense to do it.
Clinton: No, I didn't, Chris. But the point is, what are we going to do with all these illegal immigrants who are driving...
Dodd: That's a legitimate issue. But driver's license goes too far, in my view.
Clinton: Well, you may say that, but what is the identification?
If somebody runs into you today who is an undocumented worker...
Dodd: There's ways of dealing with that.
Clinton: Well...
Dodd: This is a privilege, not a right.
Clinton: Well, what Governor Spitzer has agreed to do is to have three different licenses, one that provides identification for actually going onto airplanes and other kinds of security issues, another which is another ordinary driver's license, and then a special card that identifies the people who would be on the road, so...
Dodd: That's a bureaucratic nightmare.
Clinton: ... it's not the full privilege.
Russert: Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure of what I heard. Do you, the New York senator, Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor's plan to give illegal immigrants a driver's license?
You told the New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?
Clinton: You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays "gotcha." It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problems. We have failed. And George Bush has failed. Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York, we want to know who's in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows.
He's making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform.
Posted to Immigration_dls at 08:58 PM
DCCC wants citizen informers to videotape "Macaca moments" (smears, not policy)
Showing just how sleazy and incompetent the Democratic Party is, their Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee wants people to go to campaign events and - rather than ask tough questions about policy - help them craft smears [1]:With 2008 fast approaching, the DCCC is urgently mobilizing our Rapid Responders to be our eyes and ears on the campaign trail. Our goal is to make sure that every time -- anywhere in America -- when a Republican crosses the line with one of their attacks, someone is there to capture it... The next time a Republican has a 'Macaca Moment,' will you be there to capture it? The power to hold Republicans accountable for their lies, distortions, and attacks belongs to you.Then, they want the smears to be uploaded to Youtube and a link sent to them.
If the Dems wanted to do a public service, they'd suggest what I've been urging for almost a year:
1. Go to campaign appearances and ask tough questions about policy, specifically immigration (Examples here, here, and here).
2. Upload and promote the response.
The fact that they only want smears indicates how childish and unworthy of setting policy they are.
I left the following comment on their video [2] (featuring the graphic "Will you catch the next one"); it has to be approved and I might have oversold it too much so I don't know if it will be or not:
I should also add that there's no age requirement, so you children are encouraged to join in! Also, your parents might talk in their sleep and they might say something really juicy, so be sure to keep recording at all times!11/08/07 UPDATE: The video was added October 29, and it's been featured by Youtube in their politics section for several days. They've even featured it in their non-U.S. politics sections. After almost 10,000 views, it only has two comments: "hold their feet to the fire!!" and "GOOD FOR YOU FOR GETTING THEM!!!!" I assume a) every other comment left was negative, and b) they don't know what "sock puppet" means.
If you recall, that's how they caught Rep. Tom Parsons [3].
[1] dccc.org/rapid_response_network/caughtontape (cached locally)
[2] youtube.com/watch?v=hSWTNefIhUw
[3] www.itiscannizzaro.net/Ianni/booksweb/sito1984/papers/characters.htm
Posted to Politics at 09:40 AM
Tell Senate: No to U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty
The Democrats and some Republicans want to ratify the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty, which would give a UN body control over 70% of the Earth's surface and would allow them to create a de facto global taxation system.
On Thursday, November 1 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will vote on it; please contact their members (senate.gov/~foreign/about.html) and/or your Senators and let them know you oppose the treaty.
There doesn't appear to be a concise overview available, but see this, which describes how Sen. David Vitter asked several tough questions of Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte during a previous hearing; Negroponte appears to have at least misled if not outright lied. More on their dust-up here.
This page links to much more information, such as this.
UPDATE: Sen. James Inhofe offers a brief introduction here.
Posted to Politics at 08:19 PM
Civil rights solved, lawmakers push for diversity in Capitol statuary collection
From this:Just nine statues in the Capitol's 100-piece Statuary Hall collection depict minorities, a figure that some lawmakers claim is woefully inadequate.Those quoted as supporting a de facto quota system for statues include Reps. Charlie Rangel, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Jesse Jackson Jr., Joe Baca, and Mike Honda. I'll admit that they have a slight point, even if they won't admit that this is a completely trivial issue and they're engaged in a power play. But, it least it will mean that Baca will have less time to work on opening the borders.
Concerned about the lack of diversity, the legislators are spearheading efforts to make changes to the Capitol's artwork...
Posted to MultiCultiCult at 07:44 PM
10Questions.com is a horrible idea, here's proof
10Questions.com is a new site that aggregates Youtube and similar political videos and allows visitors to vote on their favorite. The top 10 will then be asked of the presidential candidates, with the candidates then asked to upload replies.
The site is co-sponsored by several blogs as well as the New York Times and MSNBC. Almost none of those sites have an interest in real questions being asked, and now we've got proof.
My issue with the site is that those who can drive traffic to the site will be able to vote up weak questions, and that there's no accountability. Under my competing plan, only known quantities (pundits, bloggers, etc.) could vote on questions, and all their votes would be public. And, they'd be voting on whether a question is tough or not. That way, those known quantities would be forced to choose between choosing the toughest questions and losing credibility (if they voted down tough questions). Other plans would have the questions only selected by a "central committee" of like-minded individuals; mine differs in that it would be open to anyone who's been publicly stating opinions for some period such as six months or so.
Earlier today, the scenario I outlined previously occured [1]:
Participation on 10Questions.com has surged, with the total number of voters topping 15,000 (that's up about 9,000 from Friday), the total number of votes hitting 46,000 (up 19,000) and the total unique visits for the weekend at 17,000, more than ten times Friday's traffic... What happened? Several different advocacy campaigns, each on behalf of a particular question, joined in the conversation. A new video asking about net neutrality was posted, and from what we understand, MoveOn.org sent out an email to about 60,000 of its member activists urging them to vote for it. Obviously, a lot of people did, as that video rose to the top (with more than 5,000 net positive votes as of now). MySpace/MTV will be playing it for Senator Obama to answer during today's webcast (1:30pm EST), which will also be aired on MTV tonight at 7pm.
The question that was asked is here; it just asks whether the candidate would make reinstating net neutrality a priority in their first year in office.
Now, let's go to the live coverage [2]:
2:19: The question is about net neutrality, and Obama says he supports it. That's great! 10Questions wasn't mentioned, however.
The problem is that Obama already said he supported net neutrality, way back in June 8, 2006 [3]. In fact, a google search for "barack obama" "net neutrality" has that as the first hit.
If you're getting a vague Soviet vibe, hopefully you aren't alone. An advocacy group was able to propel a weak question that the candidate had already answered into top position, and the candidate answered it as he had done before.
We need real debates, and 10Questions is not the way to get them.
[1] techpresident.com/blog/entry/11190/10questions_update_10_29_07_usage_surges
[2] techpresident.com/blog/entry/11191/liveblogging
[3] obama.senate.gov/podcast/060608-network_neutral
Posted to Politics at 12:49 PM
Richard Marosi/Ari Bloomekatz/LAT enable illegal immigration (San Diego fires)
As a cost-saving move, let me suggest that the Los Angeles Times outsources their coverage to the Western Growers Association, the Mexican government, or the Democratic Party. That way, "reporters" Richard Marosi and Ari Bloomekatz can achieve their true calling of selling used tires, and there'd be little difference between the outsourced version and that which they provide in "Evacuations raise deportation fears" about illegal aliens and the San Diego wild fires (link).
In fact, their article is remarkably similar to the other instances of this new subgenre, such as that from Leslie Berestein of the SDUT or Amy Isackson of NPR/KPBS. They rely on two quote sources already seen in those previous articles (Remy Bermudez and Enrique Morones) and about the only difference is that they've managed to be even more "liberal" (i.e., in effect supporting serf labor):
Disasters can magnify the marginalized status of people here illegally... Immigrant rights groups and the American Civil Liberties Union, however, claim that authorities have created a climate of intimidation through neglect and such policies as asking for identification at some shelters... ...The mere presence of Border Patrol was enough to scare off some immigrants... ...The ACLU and immigrant rights groups claim illegal immigrants were subjected to racial profiling at Qualcomm and were abused by some volunteers who questioned their legal status...
They don't mention that asking for ID is designed to help prevent fraud; even the AP has noted that. Real reporting would involve asking the ACLU exactly how they intend to prevent fraud (and perhaps whether they really believe in "to each according to his needs" or whether they want more).
[San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders], [spokesman Fred Sainz] said, has always looked out for the needs of the migrant community and has tried to protect them from encounters with Minutemen and other groups that oppose illegal immigration... "The mayor has bent over backward to protect the migrant population," said Sainz.
Not being familiar with that mayor, I don't know whether that's because he's a "liberal" or because he's actually bending over backwards to protect their crooked employers, or both.
The article ends with a plea to be more "sensitive" to the feelings of those who aren't supposed to be here in the first place; the use of the term "immigrant" is meant to mislead:
Critics say local and federal officials should be more sensitive to how immigrants might perceive things. A checkpoint that might seem inconvenient but understandable to a citizen could represent potential deportation to an immigrant, they say.
Posted to Immigration2007b at 10:59 AM
Feds strike deal on Eliot Spitzer driver's licenses for illegal aliens (victory or defeat?)
(Picture associated with UPDATE 3 below)
From this:
The Bush administration and New York cut a deal Saturday to create a new generation of super-secure driver's licenses for U.S. citizens, but also allow illegal immigrants to get a version.The first tier is an "enhanced" license, followed by one that complies with the REAL ID Act. The third tier is one just for those who are making money for corrupt businesses and banks and who just might vote for Democrats, i.e., illegal aliens. They wouldn't be valid as federal ID. As Rep. Peter King says, this might be a defeat for Spitzer because few illegal aliens might want the licenses since they would strongly indicate that the bearer is here illegally. Needless to say, "immigrant rights" groups will probably protest it for that reason.
...Saturday's agreement with the Homeland Security Department will create a three-tier license system in New York. It is the largest state to sign on so far to the government's post-Sept. 11 effort to make identification cards more secure [joining Arizona, Vermont and Washington].
...Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said he was not happy that New York intended to issue IDs to illegal immigrants. But he said there was nothing he could do to stop it.
"I don't endorse giving licenses to people who are not here legally, but federal law does allow states to make that choice," Chertoff said.
The governor made clear he is going forward with his plan allowing licenses for illegal immigrants. But advocates on both sides of the debate said Spitzer had caved to pressure by adopting the administration's stance on tighter security standards for most driver's licenses.
UPDATE: The plan won't go into effect until mid to late 2008. Rensselaer County Clerk Frank Merola says he'll continue his plan to sue to try to prevent any kind of licenses being issued to illegal aliens. And, as predicted, those on the other side are complaining, with Chung-Wha Hong, executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition, saying:
"He has crossed the line to the other side, letting his good name be used to promote an anti-immigrant, junk security measure in the Real ID."Here are some details on the tiers:
A lower-level license for driving and state ID purposes will be available to illegal aliens and citizens. The license will carry the words "Not for U.S. government purposes" and won't be acceptable ID for boarding a plane, entering a federal facility like a courtroom, or crossing the border.The "WHTI" sounds like it warrants a bit more research.
A more expensive second license, a federally recognized document that meets the REAL ID security requirements enacted by Congress in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, will be available to citizens and legal aliens and will be good for boarding a plane or accessing federal facilities.
The third document, known as an "enhanced driver's license," will be strictly for U.S. citizens. It will carry all the federal benefits of the REAL ID, plus allow New Yorkers to cross the border into Canada without a passport under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.
UPDATE 2: Ray Rivera of the New York Times offers "Governor Accused of Betraying Principles", which will probably be repurposed as an NYT immigration editiorial. It contains a similar Chung-Wha Hong quote, together with this:
[Hong] said having separate licenses would amount to a scarlet letter for illegal immigrants. "I know I'm speaking for millions of immigrants when I say I just feel so thoroughly betrayed."If Rivera were a real reporter he would have called her on that. Isn't she basically play-acting? "Immigrants" - those who've pledged to abide by our laws - can get the middle-tier, normal licenses. Is she making the false claim that most legal immigrants feel solidarity with illegal aliens? To the extent that that's true, isn't that more of either a personal thing (mixed status families) or a racial solidarity issue? Is encouraging either of those good public policy?
And, never fear, the ACLU is here:
The separate licenses could also serve as an invitation for law enforcement to arrest anyone carrying one on immigration charges, said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. She added that the new proposal could send illegal immigrants further into the shadows, compelling them to drive with forged or no licenses and without insurance.That's what's happening already, so it's not going to get worse just because they won't get the new, special licenses just for them.
UPDATE 3: The picture at the top of this post is apparently from a protest which was held today in front of Spitzer's NYC office (link). Hong was apparently there, as well as another play-actor:
"You have forsaken a practical policy that would have been a benefit for all New Yorkers - for what? For just your own short-sighted political cover," said S.J. Jung of [Young Korean American Service and Education Center]. "Today, New Yorkers are outraged by your flip-flopping and New Yorkers are ashamed to have someone like you as our governor."YKASEC is also a member of the "New York Coalition to Expand Voting Rights", a group that wants to let "immigrants" vote; whether that means illegal aliens or not isn't known. They also say that "New York government officials do not adequately reflect the faces of the people they represent."
How badly has Spitzer's corrupt scheme failed? He's lost support among law-abiding New Yorkers, and he's also lost the support of at least the leaders of a couple groups that, like him, support illegal activity. On one hand it's good that his career has been damaged; on the other hand, it would be better if there were no licenses for illegal aliens at all.
Posted to Immigration_dls at 04:53 PM
ACLU, Leslie Berestein, Amy Isackson defending looters because they're illegal aliens
On Wednesday, an alleged group of looters were arrested at Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego; it was claimed that they were collecting supplies meant for the victims of the recent wild fires in order to resell them. Apparently one or more admitted they were stealing, and one person said it was for resale. Some were illegal aliens; when that was suspected the San Diego Police called the Border Patrol who then deported a few of them. A few others have been released.
The exact details, and everyone who was involved, isn't clear at this time (and probably never will be). However, one thing is crystal clear: Amy Isackson of NPR/KPBS, Leslie Berestein of the San Diego Union-Tribune, and the ACLU will reflexively support illegal aliens and try to prevent them from being deported. And, they'll ignore the fact that they've been charged with stealing supplies from fire victims.
First, here's Berestein with "Border Patrol presence at stadium causes anxiety" (link):
The apprehension and removal to Mexico of two couples, one with three children, after they were accused of looting at Qualcomm Stadium Wednesday has created unease among some of the Latino evacuees staying there... Andrea Guerrero, field and policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union in San Diego, said about 25 families who were staying at the stadium left after the incident because they were undocumented, or of mixed legal status... Guerrero said the police department should not have called Border Patrol agents, some of whom are stationed at the stadium assisting other law enforcement officers, unless formal criminal charges were filed. [SDPD spokeswoman Monica Munoz], however, said the department did not violate protocol and that the accused individuals admitted to stealing. [...one of the deported illegal aliens says she wasn't stealing...]
And, here's the similar "Arrest of Six Illegal Immigrants at Qualcomm Raises Concerns" from Isackson (link):
The arrest of six illegal immigrants at the Qualcomm Stadium evacuation site yesterday raises questions regarding how San Diego Police handle immigration issues. Civil rights activists are concerned police may be violating their own policy with respect to the Border Patrol... Kevin Keenan is Executive Director of the ACLU. He says he hopes police can resolve the discrepancy [vis-a-vis a sanctuary-style policy]...
For a point of reference, here's Gillian Flaccus of the Associated Press with "Thieves and scam artists try to take advantage of SoCal fires" (link):
At the stadium, volunteer Karen Huff said she and other volunteers alerted police earlier this week when they spotted a half-dozen people loading two pickup trucks with relief items. Police confronted the thieves and recovered the goods... "Thousands of dollars worth of stuff was being taken from these victims," Huff said. "It's the worst type of crime you can commit, when you take advantage of a situation like this." ...The Border Patrol detained eight people Wednesday who were suspected of stealing cots, blankets and dry goods, said San Diego police Capt. Bob Kanaski. Police officers questioned 15 people who were suspected of filling up two trucks and a sedan with stolen property and brought in the Border Patrol after surmising that some were illegal immigrants. The other seven were released... ...Authorities said some charlatans were coming to the disbursement center up to four or five times a day to stock up on supplies.
When even the AP is less biased, you've got a problem.
Posted to Immigration2007b at 12:24 PM
Mike Glover/AP promotes Mike Huckabee, fails to note his immigration issues
Mike Glover of the Associated Press offers a partial lionization of Mike Huckabee in "Iowans Gives Huckabee a Second Look". It's similar to the Adam Nagourney puff piece, starting with:
Mike Huckabee, who strums a bass guitar and cracks jokes at campaign stops, is quietly establishing himself with Iowa voters as a serious candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.
Then, we get the downsides of the other candidates, including this:
McCain stirs distrust among party regulars because he has advocated an immigration overhaul that includes a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens and because he co-wrote a campaign finance law despised by conservatives.
As readers know, Huckabee is extremely weak on immigration, but Glover doesn't mention that among his "vulnerabilities":
He has been criticized by anti-tax groups for signing tax increases as governor, although he also signed into law nearly $100 million in income tax breaks... Two months after taking over as governor, Huckabee announced he would commute the sentence of castrated rapist Wayne DuMond, creating a furor. Four months later, Huckabee denied clemency on the same day that the state parole board announced it would release DuMond if another state accepted him. DuMond was released to Missouri in October 1999 and in June 2001, he was charged in the murder of a Kansas City-area woman.
If you want to get Huckabee's immigration record out there, please go to his campaign appearances and ask him a question like this.
Posted to Politics at 01:47 PM
Illegal aliens steal evacuee supplies; NPR's Amy Isackson promotes serf labor
Six illegal aliens were allegedly caught stealing supplies in San Diege meant for wild fire evacuees. They brought trucks and came back for more, and one of their group said they were paid to do so. While there might be a somewhat understandable explanation, such as they were taking them to an ad hoc shelter somewhere else, I suspect that if there were such an explanation we would have heard it. If there isn't such an explanation, it shouldn't be surprising that some of those who've shown no respect for our immigration laws would show no respect for fire victims.
Meanwhile, Amy Isackson of NPR puts the pseudo-humanitarian, crypto-corporatist spin on a related issue in "Fires Highlight Safety Needs of Migrant Workers":
Jesus Gomez from Oaxaca was at his job at a nursery in San Diego's North County when the Witch fire roared in from the east. His crew kept working while wind whipped smoke and ash in their eyes... "They gave us masks, but still, our eyes were filling with dirt and ashes. So, we keep working, but then the police came in," Gomez says... He says his boss told him to stop working only after law enforcement gave the mandatory evacuation order... ...The Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement are lending 200 officers to law enforcement efforts during the fire... Just their presence in the streets ignites people's fear...
If all or most were legal workers or not enrolled in a "guest" worker program, situations like that would not occur. Instead of looking into that, the overall impact of the NPR report is to enable such working conditions. If Isackson wanted to prevent such working conditions, she'd support the Border Patrol rather than try to portray them as an invading army.
Also quoted: "immigrants rights activist Enrique Morones", someone who's a member of the Democratic Party of San Diego; a Mexican official joined him on a ride in support of illegal immigration.
Posted to Immigration2007b at 01:23 PM
Hugh Hewitt is really, really, really happy about his cruise of South America
While smiles like this are usually associated with either maniacs or those who are about to embark on a BrazillianSexTour, I am almost positive that Hugh Hewitt was just having a good day. A really, really, really good day:
Posted to WackyHumor at 08:48 PM
Joe Klein of Time Magazine explicitly supports illegal immigration
It'd be great if every pundit was so forthright about their support for massive illegal activity. Here's Joe Klein of Time Magazine coming out explicitly in favor of illegal immigration [1]:It's long been my belief that the GOP hole card in 2008 is going to be a rancid furriner-bashing anti-illegal-immigrant smear campaign. Make no mistake, whatever lipstick they put on this pig, the bottom line is the same old know-nothing nativism that has been a minor American stain since the Protestants began to get worried about the Irish Catholic surge in the 1840s (among some of our earliest settlers, the only acceptable immigrants were slaves).I left the following comment:
I tend to be an extremist on this issue. I am wildly in favor of immigration, legal and illegal. I realize that national security--i.e. terrorism--requires that we secure the borders, and that's a good thing, if almost impossible. But as a New Yorker, I'm deeply grateful to the immigrants, many of them illegal, who saved the city by bringing commerce (and sales tax revenues) to some of the toughest neighborhoods in the 1970s and 1980s...
"furriner"? What other regional dialects would Joe Klein feel free at mocking? Please, provide us with a list.[1] time-blog.com/swampland/2007/10/the_gop_in_2008_1.html
It's good to hear Klein explicitly coming out in support of massive illegal activity. By so doing, he's also a supporter of all it entails and implies: massive government corruption, identity theft, political power inside the U.S. for foreign governments, and so on.
And, of course, there are huge differences between then and now. For instance, 58% of Mexicans think the U.S. southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico. That's not true of past groups. There are many other differences as well.
And, of course, Klein is engaging in a logical fallacy: just because some opponents of illegal activity might be racist doesn't mean that opposition to illegal activity is necessarily racist, as much as supporters of illegal activity like Klein would like it to be.
Should Time Magazine continue to employ someone who explicitly states his support for massive illegal activity? Write them and let them know what you think.
P.S. A partial list of recent Joe Klein lies is here [2].
[2] time-blog.com/swampland/2007/10/gop_debate_1.html (do a find for "recap")
Posted to Immigration2007b at 12:59 PM
Senate blocks DREAM Act
The DREAM Act was up for a cloture vote earlier today; the Democrats needed 60 votes to proceed, but they only came up with 52 versus 44 opposed.
UPDATE: The votes are here.
Those voting for it included current or former presidential contenders Joe Biden (D-DE), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), and Barack Obama (D-IL).
Republicans voting for it were: Bob Bennett (R-UT), Norm Coleman (R-MN), Susan Collins (R-ME), Larry Craig (R-ID), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Trent Lott (R-MS), Dick Lugar (R-IN), and Mel Martinez (R-FL).
Democrats voting against it were: Max Baucus (D-MT), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Mark Pryor (D-AR), and Jon Tester (D-MT).
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) voted for it, but Boxer didn't vote.
Chris Dodd (D-CT), Teddy Kennedy (D-MA), and John McCain (R-AZ) also didn't vote.
Posted to Immigration2007b at 11:40 AM
Fred Thompson releases good-sounding immigration plan (attrition)
Fred Thompson - someone who I don't entirely trust and who in fact doesn't appear to be exactly energetic - has released an immigration plan that actually sounds acceptable (link). First he says he's against amnesty, but aren't they all. But, the surprising bit is that he appears to actually mean it:
Attrition through Enforcement. Reduce the number of illegal aliens through increased enforcement against unauthorized alien workers and their employers. Without illegal employment opportunities available, fewer illegal aliens will attempt to enter the country, and many of those illegally in the country now likely will return home. Self-deportation can also be maximized by stepping up the enforcement levels of other existing immigration laws. This course of action offers a reasonable alternative to the false choices currently proposed to deal with the 12 million or more aliens already in the U.S. illegally: either arrest and deport them all, or give them all amnesty.
Whether he actually means that is another matter. At the least, he's put something more detailed than Mitt Romney out there, and unlike Rudy Giuliani he doesn't appear to favor an amnesty. It will be interesting to see whether the GOP and Dem candidates try to change their plans in some way or how they try to attack it.
WAS IT COORDINATED? UPDATE: Both the Democratic National Committee ("DNC", link) and Rudy Giuliani (link) have taken remarkably similar swipes at Thompson's plan. Neither discuss anything about the plan itself, only pointing out his spotty Senate record.
Posted to Immigration2007b at 10:56 AM
Morris Dees/SPLC: Lou Dobbs will one day be "depicted like George Wallace" (Don Walton)
Don Walton of Lincoln, Nebraska's Journal Star offers a gushing report of a stop by Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (link). We're informed that he's "increasingly focused now on Latino immigrant worker rights". Of course, what he really wants to do is give foreign citizens additional rights. His organization also has an indirect link to the Mexican government. After meaningless chatter he issued a far-left rationalization for illegal immigration, promoted profiting from an imported serf class, and then issued his smear:...Latino workers, as well as other immigrants, come to the United States primarily for jobs, Dees said, sometimes migrating here because failed U.S. policies adversely affected conditions in their own countries.The New York Times has already compared opponents of the Senate amnesty to Wallace, and I have little doubt that far-lefties like Dees would love to rewrite history so Dobbs is seen in the least favorable light possible. Our goal should be to get the truth out about Morris Dees and his organization.
If there was a 30-day work stoppage by every undocumented worker, he said, the effects on the U.S. economy could be staggering.
They are part of the fabric now.
"America is great because of its diversity and differences, not in spite of them," he said.
One day, Dees said, CNN's Lou Dobbs "will be depicted like George Wallace," the Alabama governor who preached segregation and fanned the flames of racial animosity and division...
Posted to Immigration2007b at 10:28 AM
DREAM Act could be voted on Tuesday 10/23/07, call your Senators
From this:
By invoking Senate Rule XIV on S. 2205 [link], Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has paved the way for prompt (and ill-advised) floor action on the measure, Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin's (D-Ill.) new stand-alone DREAM Act amnesty bill. The procedural move, made late last week, means that the DREAM Act may be brought to the Senate floor as early as Tuesday (October 23) without ever having been considered in committee.
Co-sponsors are Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel; a couple of the worse provisions have been removed, but it remains a massive amnesty with huge loopholes (described at the first link).
UPDATE: The vote on this is Wednesday, so please keep calling and tell others to do the same. More of the horrific features of the amnesty are listed here. Millions could be amnestied under the scheme.
Posted to Immigration2007b at 04:19 PM
2004: Mike Huckabee promotes benefits of illegal immigration
On July 6, 2004 Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee - currently a presidential contender - spoke on his monthly radio show and, responding to a caller's question about illegal aliens, said the following:
"If they're illegal they're not about to show up at some public institution and say I'd like funds because when they do the I.D. check and find out they're illegal then they're in trouble... [quotes a study purportedly showing that illegal aliens contribute more than they take...] So these are not the people who are accessing welfare, food stamps because they're not eligible for them. They can't get them... They're purchasing things and paying sales tax... They're buying things. They're paying taxes but they're not getting the benefits of a taxpayer. Not Social Security, not food stamps, welfare, benefits from employers... The truth is the illegal aliens are costing themselves more by being illegal when the real goal ought to be to give people the opportunity to become legal, naturalized citizens of the United States."
The article then adds: Huckabee emphasized that he was not justifying illegal immigration. Obviously, he did, and we don't have to look too far to get one idea why that might be.
Needless to say, a tape of this show would be very useful.
Recently:
From the Back of the Pack to David Brooks' Heart (promotes Mike Huckabee)
Posted to Politics at 03:10 PM
Desperate New York Times immigration editorial plays race card; afraid attrition might work?
Like clockwork, the New York Times offers yet another immigration editorial and, of course, they're still wrong ("Ain’t That America", link). Per them, not enacting comprehensive immigration "reform" is yet another in the long line of "greatest historical shames" perpetrated by the U.S. The national mood is slipping into "hatred and fear" against those "documented or not, who speak Spanish and are working-class or poor":
The evidence can be seen in any state or town that has passed constitutionally dubious laws to deny undocumented immigrants the basics of living, like housing or the right to gather or to seek work. It's in hot lines for citizens to turn in neighbors. It's on talk radio and blogs. It's on the campaign trail, where candidates are pressed to disown moderate positions. And it can be heard nearly every night on CNN, in the nativist drumming of Lou Dobbs, for whom immigration is an obsessive cause.
As evidenced by their coverage, supporting illegal immigration and cheap labor is an "obsessive cause" for the NYT. As for those questions, the fact that the NYT's "reporters" aren't out there taking the candidates to task for the gaping holes in their policies shows that they're just a propaganda source and not a real newspaper.
Then, after promoting Eliot Spitzer's scheme to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens, they offer three choices to solve the problem. The first is mass deportations, something that no national leaders are calling for. The second could have been written by either the Democrats or the Bush administration:
Find out who they are. Distinguish between criminals and people who just want to work. Get them on the books. Make them pay what they owe - not just the income, Social Security, sales and property taxes they already pay, but all their taxes, and a fine. Get a smooth legal flow of immigrants going, and then concentrate on catching and deporting bad people.
They can't even get that right: all of the amnesties so far proposed would have allowed terrorists and criminals to sneak through the cracks, with the latest Senate bill allowing the DHS to admit known gang members. At least one version would have forgiven two years of taxes. And, that "smooth legal flow" sounds vaguely like an attempt to flood the U.S. with cheap foreign labor.
Their last choice is a mischaracterization of attrition, and they appear to have done that because they're afraid it might work:
Catch the few you can, and harass and frighten the rest. Treat the entire group as a de facto class of criminals, and disrupt or shout down anyone or any plan seen as abetting their evildoing.
Most people who support attrition are obviously not guilty of what the NYT claims; they're simply playing the victim. In fact, the ones trying to do the "shouting down" are those on the NYT's side who continually try to racialize the issue, use misleading "news" reports (such as from the NYT), smear people like Lou Dobbs, and so on.
The New York Times doesn't want a real debate on this issue: they want to try to kneecap their opponents by calling them bigots rather than, for instance, doing real reporting on this issue and disclosing all the downsides of the "reform" they support or asking the presidential front-runners to defend their flawed policies.
Posted to Immigration2007b at 11:52 AM
Fox GOP October 21 debate had only two offhand immigration questions
Last night's Fox New GOP "debate" only had two, offhand questions about immigration matters, and one of those was in response to something Fred Thompson said (transcript link). Their September debate at least had a section devoted to the topic, even if all the questions they asked were weak.
Obviously, immigration is a vital topic and many Americans are concerned about it. Yet, all the media can offer is the occasional question designed simply to elicit stock responses and none that I've seen have been willing to ask the candidates about the specific flaws in their specific policies and in a way designed to avoid stock speeches. And, I have a great deal of trouble believing that that isn't intentional: asking tough questions about this topic would cost powerful forces money and power, so real questions are off the table.
I once again urge everyone reading this to go to campaign appearances, ask the questions the MSM won't ask, and then upload the response to video sharing sites. If enough people do that we can make immigration a campaign issue.
In the debate, Fred Thompson mentioned that he had voted against sanctuary cities and that Rudy Giuliani had sued to fight that. Rudy responds:
Oh, the simple fact is that New York City had a policy of allowing people who are illegal immigrants to report crime and to put their children in school. Otherwise, we reported every single illegal immigrant that committed a crime.
Everyone in the U.S. has probably already memorized what he said right after that:
The results had to be pretty darn good. I brought down crime by over 60 percent in New York City. I brought down homicide by 67 percent. I had the most legal city in the country. And I took the crime capital of America and I turned it into the safest large city in the country.
I wonder: if he becomes president will we have to have that paragraph tattooed on our foreheads?
The only formal question about immigration was to Tancredo:
...your health care plans seems intended to show how tough you would be on illegal immigration. Your concerns involve the illegal immigrants using our hospital emergency rooms. The RAND Corporation says that illegal immigrants account for about 1.5 percent of the nation's health care costs.
These debates are, in fact, "show debates" that might as well have taken place in the Soviet Union.
Posted to Immigration2007b at 09:28 AM
Spitzer driver's licenses and illegal aliens voting (Motor Voter)
From this:A new front has opened up in the war over Gov. Eliot Spitzer's undocumented immigrants driver's license controversy - the voting booth.New York DMV first sent out a memo saying that Motor Voter apps were only for those who supplied a Social Security number. That was followed the same day by another memo saying clerks can't withhold MV forms and should just send them all to the registrar of voters. Spitzer's office said the second was the policy all along. Keep reading:
The latest battle lines are being drawn over how the state processes what is popularly called "motor voter" applications, where those seeking drivers' licenses can at the same time register to vote.
Critics say Spitzer is not only compromising security by licensing undocumented immigrants, but he also is opening the door to a flood of illegal voters. Aides to Spitzer say he is just following the existing law, and the new rules will improve security and public safety.
However, John McArdle, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno (R-Brunswick), said several upstate clerks have told their office that the new directive is a "total reversal" of past practice. "This strips back the veil of what their intentions have been all along - to register as many illegals as they can," McArdle said.Maybe it's time for the Feds to step in and take a closer look at Eliot Spitzer.
Frank Merola, Rensselaer's Republican county clerk, said that before the Oct. 2 change listing the Social Security number on the license application automatically opened the option for going to the motor voter screen on the computer. The latest change eliminates that safeguard, he added.
Posted to Immigration_dls at 09:29 PM
John McCain admits immigration "reform" hurt his campaign
Just to put a nice shiny bow on his cratered campaign, here he is on Fox News Sunday (link). After Chris Wallace asks him for his mistakes:
Well, a little straight talk - immigration reform was something that Americans, because they didn't trust the government - they have no trust or confidence in the government. They didn't believe us when we said we'd secure the borders. I got the message, we're going to secure the borders... ...So I think immigration reform, obviously, was something that hurt me with the base. That was probably primarily...
Note, of course, that he still supports "reform" (aka amnesty), he's just changed his tactics to get it.
Related:
E.J. Dionne, Chris Cillizza/WaPo realize: voters oppose illegal immigration (Niki Tsongas)
Posted to Immigration2007b at 09:18 PM
KC mayor Mark Funkhouser doesn't give in to La Raza demands; NCLR moves convention
The National Council of La Raza threatened to move their 2009 convention out of Kansas City, Missouri unless a member of that city's parks board - also a member of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps - either quit from the board or the group. Mayor Mark Funkhouser seemed to buckle a bit, but he didn't give in to their demands, and now the NCLR has unanimously decided to hold their convention in another city.
This is a good victory for those who - unlike the NCLR - support the enforcement of our immigration laws and those who oppose strong-arm tactics by groups that fund extremists.
This also marks one of the few times where I'll point approvingly to an Associated Press paragraph (link):
A national Hispanic civil rights organization said Saturday it will not hold its 2009 annual convention in Kansas City because an opponent of illegal immigration was appointed to the city's park board.
Gotta love the way they got that cause and effect in there.
Previously:
Tell KC mayor Mark Funkhouser: don't give in to National Council of La Raza
Kansas City Star to mayor: capitulate to racial power groups, money's at stake!
Posted to Immigration2007b at 09:09 PM
Mel Martinez quits as RNC chairman; Peter Wallsten/LAT offers pro-illegal immigration spin
As predicted and even sooner than was hoped, Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) has quit as the head of the RNC. Don't let the door hit you, etc.Now comes Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times to put the worst possible face on it ("Latino head of RNC resigns", link). While it reads like something Howard Dean could have written, even he might consider it race-baiting:
The Republican Party's highest-ranking Latino official abruptly resigned Friday, marking the latest casualty in the GOP's bitter internal fight over immigration and dealing another setback to President Bush's years-long effort to court Latino voters.I wasn't joking above: Howard Dean could have written those paragraphs. Must Latino voters be courted by hiring someone who's of the same race as they? Isn't that more of a Democratic/far-left assumption? Must they be courted by hiring someone who supports massive immigration? Isn't that assumption not only false but against the best interests of the U.S.? And, while Bush certainly seems to favor Hispanics over other groups, isn't his attempt to court the mythical Hispanic vote basically just because he's corrupt and his backers want cheap labor (and perhaps because he wants to get his hands on Mexico's oil). And, aren't Martinez' claims about the "tenor" basically just sleazy attempts to call the majority of members of his party bigots in order to cow them into supporting the importation of cheap labor?
The announcement by Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida that he was quitting as general chairman of the Republican National Committee came after he had expressed frustration over the tenor of the immigration debate within his party. Martinez will remain in his Senate post...
...The White House had engineered the ascent of the Cuban-born Martinez over the objections of many conservatives as part of an effort to repair the GOP's image among Latinos. That image suffered when Republican congressional leaders and conservative activists stymied administration-backed measures that would have created a path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants...
Those questions are obviously too honest for a dishonest "reporter" like Wallsten, who goes on to quote GOP consultant Lionel Sosa, who brings his own brand of poison to the issue. Wallsten doesn't disclose that Sosa is supporting Bill Richardson for president. He even did so in explictly racial terms: "Blood runs thicker than politics". Note that Wallsten himself wrote the article where he said that. This time around he says:
"Mel Martinez was a symbol of the party's outreach to Latinos, and that seems to be disappearing... It is not a good day for Latino Republicans, that's for sure."More poison follows:
Robert de Posada, president of the Republican-leaning Latino Coalition [and also linked to Western Union], said Martinez's departure is especially disheartening because it follows the resignation of another high-profile Latino in the GOP: former U.S. Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales.
"The message that it sends is Latinos are not welcome," De Posada said. "The radical conservative base has a temporary victory right now."
Posted to Immigration2007b at 08:48 PM
Richard Clarke endorses Spitzer license scheme; opposed DLs for illegal aliens in June
Richard Clarke - former counterterrorism adviser to Bill Clinton and George Bush - has endorsed Elliot Spitzer's scheme to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens, saying:
States should act to register immigrants, legal and illegal, who use our roadways as New York is doing... From a law enforcement and security perspective, it is far preferable for the state to know who is living in it and driving on its roads . . . than to have large numbers of people living in our cities whose identity is totally unknown to the government.
Just one problem: back on June 1 of this year, he wrote a New York Times editorial called "A Back Door for Terrorists" (link):
...The Real ID Act of 2005, which among other things established standards for state-issued driver's licenses and non-driver's identification cards, has now been put off until at least 2009. And many states are in open revolt against its tough requirements for issuing driver's licenses... The result is that potential terrorists here illegally can easily use phony licenses or, in many states, get real ones issued to them, along with credit cards and all of the other papers needed to blend into our society. (The only places in this country that seem to check the validity of drivers' licenses are bars in college neighborhoods.) Indeed, those arrested for allegedly planning to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey included illegal immigrants who apparently had little difficulty getting along in this country.
Asked to explain himself, Clarke said it was because New York's licensing requirements are tough. I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with him seeking some sort of political or financial gain.
Posted to Immigration_dls at 01:26 PM
E.J. Dionne, Chris Cillizza/WaPo realize: voters oppose illegal immigration (Niki Tsongas)
Pundits have spilt a lot of ink trying to convince themselves that opposing illegal immigration is a losing political issue. Those include: Fred Barnes, Linda Chavez, Tamar Jacoby, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Arlen Specter, and Michael Barone.Now, we turn to the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne ("Test Run For 2008", link). Note, of course, that the Washington Post explicitly supports illegal immigration:
In Massachusetts's 5th Congressional District -- a collection of mill towns and affluent and blue-collar suburbs north of Boston -- the surprise issue was illegal immigration. [Jim Ogonowski] made it the centerpiece of an anti-Washington campaign. An Ogonowski news release, for example, accused Tsongas of being "committed to giving cheap college to illegals at taxpayer expense."Earlier, Chris Cillizza of "The Fix" wrote (link):
...[Niki Tsongas], a community college dean, favored granting in-state tuition rates to the children of undocumented immigrants. In Ogonowski's translation of that, Tsongas believed that "Massachusetts taxpayers should foot the bill for the college tuition of the children of illegals."
Republicans think the immigration issue helped Ogonowski, so the country may be in for a lot more of this sort of thing next year. "Everywhere we went, people wanted to talk about immigration," said Matt Wylie, Ogonowski's general consultant. "It was just coming up over and over again."
[...SCHIP may have helped her win...]
[Ogonowski] also found fertile ground by calling for a crackdown on illegal immigration and decrying Tsongas' support for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants as amnesty.
Posted to Immigration2007b at 07:53 PM
NY Sen. Jose M. Serrano supports Spitzer's illegal aliens driver's licenses
New York state senator Jose Serrano supports New York governor Eliot Spitzer's scheme to give illegal aliens driver's licenses. In this post he discusses an appearance on the Lou Dobbs show: first he race-baits and plays the victim card, implying that those who support enforcement of our immigration laws are racists. That, of course, is to be expected. Then:The 9/11 Commission determined that restricting access to driver's licenses based on immigration status would not have prevented the attacks.I strongly suspect that he's not telling the whole truth. While I've discussed Chapter 3 of the 9/11 Commission Staff Report as well as other parts, I don't have time to scour the full report in order to find out whether he's lying and what he isn't telling us. However, you can leave comments at the link if you're more familiar with this and would like to discredit him.
In fact, in the long list of proposals to make the licensing system more secure, the Commission explicitly did not recommend denying driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants as a measure that would prevent another attack.
The Commission did, however, recommend that states take immediate steps to increase the security of their licenses, which is an integral part of the Governor's plan.
See also:
The 9/11 hijackers and driver's licenses
9/11 hijacker used bypass code to obtain California [driver's] license
9/11 hijackers were illegal aliens; Senate bill would have given them a loophole
"Immigration Laws Might Have Stopped Sept. 11 Plot"
DOH UPDATE: I originally stated this was from Rep. Jose E. Serrano, but now I see this is from someone else: Jose M. Serrano, a state senator and not a Congressman.
Posted to Immigration_dls at 02:20 PM
Mexican consul meddling in Irving Texas (Matricula Consular cards to prevent arrests)
From this:The Mexican Consulate wants to send mobile units to Irving [Texas] to issue identification cards [Matricula Consular cards] to illegal immigrants to try to save them from arrest and deportation.
Irving Mayor Herbert Gears said the ID cards could prevent only a few arrests, but he promised to meet monthly with Consul Enrique Hubbard Urrea to review any complaints stemming from the city's Criminal Alien Program.
Posted to Immigration_consul at 01:58 PM
Smoking gun emails: Spitzer retaliated against opponent of his driver's license scheme
From this:
A key Republican lawmaker [Assembly Minority Leader James Tedisco (R-Schenectady)] disclosed several "smoking gun" e-mails yesterday showing [New York governor Eliot Spitzer]'s administration had OK'd funding for a local health-care clinic last month - before suddenly canceling the grant on Monday after his attack on Spitzer's plan to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens...
Spitzer claimed it was for budgetary reasons, but the emails indicate otherwise.
Posted to Immigration_dls at 11:43 AM
From the Back of the Pack to David Brooks' Heart (promotes Mike Huckabee)
As an indication of the cluelessness of our elites, David Brooks offers a paean to Mike Huckabee entitled "From the Back of the Pack" (link). Expect this attempt by our elites to push Huckabee to succeed about as well as their attempt to push through "comprehensive immigration reform". As an example of David Brooks' cluelessness, consider this:
[E]ach of the top-tier candidates makes certain parts of the party uncomfortable. Huckabee is the one candidate acceptable to all factions.
Except, of course, to the "faction" that supports enforcement of our immigration laws and that opposes illegal immigration. As discussed here for years, Huckabee has been a strong supporter of illegal immigration. And, he does it in a sanctimonious way that's even more annoying than George Bush.
I don't know the extent to which Huckabee's stance is known, but I very strongly urge everyone to go to his campaign appearances and ask him this question and then publicize his response.
Posted to Immigration2007b at 10:03 AM
Naomi Wolf: prepare for war
I am hereby declaring Blog War on Naomi Wolf.
As discussed at that link, I left a comment on one of her Huffington Post entries. It should have been approved, but it was not.
Now, it has happened again on this post; comment below. This time the address that visited the linked page was from a South Bay Area SBC address; whether it was Wolf herself or one of Arianna Huffington's minions isn't clear.
In any case, I am urging all my minions, retainers, followers, and various hangers-on to visit Wolf's future entries and post comments pointing out flaws in what little argument she can provide. Give her forces no quarter!
--- COMMENT ----
I somewhat trust Ron Paul, but based on their history I'm not so trusting of the far-left/Democrats. For all I know this bill has something supporting Lynne Stewart or the Cuban Five hidden within it. Unfortunately, the credibility of the far-left/Democrats on this issue is below zero. Let me know when someone a bit more mainstream than RP gets behind it.
P.S. I discuss here the comment that you or a HuffPost helper didn't post to an earlier thread:
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007067.html
Why wasn't that posted?
Posted to Bloggage at 09:57 AM
Hispanic vote is a myth?
We already knew that. Now comes Steven Malanga from City Journal, writing in the Los Angeles Times (link):...The Latino vote for Bush was far from decisive, however, and it may be years before it plays a pivotal role in a national election. Latinos may represent about 14% of the U.S. population, but they constituted just 6% of the 2004 electorate -- 7.5 million voters out of 125 million. According to Census Bureau data, only 34% of the nation's adult Latino population registered to vote in 2004, and 28% voted. By contrast, 67% of the country's adult white, non-Latino population and 56% of its adult black population voted in 2004. Black voters outnumbered Latino voters nearly 2 to 1 in 2004.He makes other points that have been made here and elsewhere, namely that supporting a loose border policy is contrary to the interests of Hispanics, that a significant portion of Hispanics actually support our laws, and that pandering to the loose borders sentiment of those on the far-left might actually be counter-productive.
Exit polls taken during 2004 also indicate Latino support for Bush may have been exaggerated. In different polls, Bush's share of the Latino vote ranged from a high of 44% to a low of 33%. Yet subsequent academic studies have estimated Bush's actual level of Latino support at the lower end, somewhere between 35% and 37%. Seen in this context, the "swing" of voters from Bob Dole, who garnered 21% of the Latino vote in 1996, to George W. Bush was hardly historic. In 1984, Ronald Reagan captured 37% of the Latino vote -- a performance at least equal to Bush's.
This suggests that the key to winning Latino votes may be running good candidates, not pandering. Latino voters themselves seem to agree. A 2004 Washington Post poll found that immigration was the least important issue among Latino voters, with only 3.5% placing it at the top of their concerns...
As a gauge of Republican orthodoxy, let's turn to "Captain Ed" (link):
Republicans need to make the argument that tighter border security and immigration policy will help protect not just national security, but also jobs and wages for American citizens and legal residents. The GOP has a shared set of values on life issues with the Hispanic community, and a shared focus on strengthening the family. If we make those arguments, we can lift both the floor and the ceiling of our share of their vote, and do so without mindless pandering.
Posted to Immigration2007b at 09:01 AM
Mary Peters, Carlos Gutierrez, Mexican official team up to promote Mexican trucks in U.S.
From this:Bush administration officials [Department of Transportation Secretary Mary Peters and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez] held a news conference with Mexico's transportation secretary [Luis Tellez] yesterday to respond to criticism of a program allowing Mexican trucks on U.S. roads, but critics in Congress who helped pass counter-legislation are unmoved...The press conference included a sideshow: an inspection of a U.S. and a Mexican truck. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) - who opposes the trucks for union-related reasons - said about that:
...By overwhelming margins, the Senate and the House adopted identical amendments into the Transportation/HUD Appropriations bill that would cut off federal funds for the truck project. The House passed the measure 411-3 while the Senate voted 75-23. The bill awaits consideration by a Joint Conference Committee...
"The information we need to ensure the safety of American drivers on American highways is not available... That includes vehicle inspection and drivers' records and accidents reports. None of that information is available. An 'inspection' of a hand-picked Mexican truck at a press conference doesn't change that."
Posted to Immigration2007b at 08:55 AM
Braindead: Neal Boortz, Susan Estrich, Alan Colmes on Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence incident
On October 7, two members of San Francisco's "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" (the "nuns" - except for the last "nun" - featured on this video) took Communion at the Holy Redeemer Church, located in Frisco's Castro district (thesisters.org/MHR_Release.html; picture here; news report with video of the incident here; apology from Archbishop here). They were videotaped apparently by a member of a conservative Catholic group, and in any case if them dressing as nuns-in-drag and their history wasn't enough of a clue, the behavior of the two - such as pretend cheek kissing - made it clear that their goal was to mock, despite their protestations to the contrary.
Bill O'Reilly has been making hay with this event since then, and tonight's Hannity & Colmes decided to make some hay as well.
Guests Neal Boortz and Susan Estrich and host Alan Colmes were completely clueless on this issue, thinking it was a good thing that they were going to church. Whether due to the libertarianism of the first and the liberalism of the last, or due to something in the water, they completely failed to understand that the goal of the exercise was to mock the Catholic Church. While I'm used to seeing braindead pundits, this was a new low.
Posted to Miscellania at 10:01 PM
DREAM Act might be coming back...
From this:
Now that the Senate has completed action on the CJS spending bill, senators have taken up the labor, health and human services spending bill (H.R. 3043). Some Capitol Hill sources are telling NumbersUSA that open borders senators may offer the DREAM Act amnesty as an amendment to that bill. Although we cannot confirm this, NumbersUSA members are nonetheless encouraged to contact their senators to stave off this possibility.
Depending on its current configuration, the DREAM Act may allow illegal aliens to take college discounts from U.S. citizens, thereby depriving U.S. citizens of college educations and devaluing U.S. citizenship. It would be absurdly simple to discredit its backers by pointing that out; here's a sample question for Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and all its other supporters.
Posted to Immigration2007b at 02:15 PM
Even California Nurses Association turns on Fabian Nunez (wife's conflict of interest)
From this:The California Nurses Association demanded Tuesday that Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez abstain from voting on health-care legislation because his wife works for a nonprofit agency bankrolled by the hospital industry.Hillary Clinton campaign co-chair Nunez must no longer be useful to those in power, or perhaps they're Obama supporters who are trying to make Hillary's campaign more difficult. Just recently, the Los Angeles Times - usually a staunch ignorer of malfeasance by Democrats, especially former MEChA members - has run negative articles on him, as have the AP and the Sacramento Bee.
"Californians can no longer trust that he will represent the public interest and not the financial interest of a large industry that has put his wife on their payroll," Zenei Cortez, spokeswoman for the association and for the National Nurses Organizing Committee, said in a written statement Tuesday.
The Bee reported Tuesday that Nunez's wife, Maria Robles, was hired at a six-figure salary in January to serve as president of Californians for Patient Care, a Sacramento-based nonprofit agency that receives nearly all its funding from the California Hospital Association...
Posted to California at 02:09 PM
Tech President/10 Questions: is it meant to work in the first place?
This site "techPresident" (techpresident.com) has launched a new feature called "10 Questions" that's highly similar to the existing site Community Counts (one of those behind CC is involved in 10Q). Basically, people will upload video questions for the candidates, others will vote on the top questions, the top ten questions for each candidate will be selected, and then the candidates will be asked to answer the questions.
Sounds great, except it won't work as it appears to be intended. By allowing a simple vote, the worst questions will be selected: Obama Girls, snowmen, puffballs, scandal questions, the whole lot.
In fact, I earlier sent techPresident a link to my much better suggestion. They ignored the first couple emails, but on the third the guy who runs it made a cryptic reference to other formats coming down the pike. I guess we know what one of those other formats is. Unfortunately, it's an inferior format, and it will simply lead to more of the same.
Which shouldn't be surprising considering those who are sponsoring it, which includes the New York Times, MSNBC, and a series Democratic/Republican partisan blogs. Almost zero of those sources would be able to recognize a tough question for a candidate if it fell on their head, and almost zero of those sources have any interest in any of the candidates being embarrassed by being asked a tough question.
UPDATE: Here's a tangible example. If these videos were entered into the contest, which do you think stands a better chance of being voted into the Top 10?
I'm going to hazard a guess that the one featuring Melissa Jenna would get more votes. Unfortunately, attractive as she is, none of her questions quite pack the punch that mine (such as the one on the left) do. With my proposal, anyone who voted up her videos and voted mine down would run the risk of reducing their own credibility.
With voting open to everyone, someone like "Captain Ed" or Instapundit could encourage their visitors to vote up select videos. Would either of those select videos that, say, took Mike Huckabee or John McCain to task for their support for illegal immigration? I would be extremely doubtful, since the "Captain" did an interview with Huckabee without quizzing him on his immigration stance, the area where he's weakest and where it would be easiest to completely discredit him. And, Instapundit did an 18 minute or so interview with Huck that didn't feature immigration at all, in addition to letting two John McCain lies about immigration fly right past him.
No one should trust either of those two to ask Huckabee, McCain, or the others tough questions about immigration, yet they could drive traffic to the contest and cause videos to be put into the Top 10.
Posted to Politics at 09:02 AM
72% oppose Spitzer driver's licenses for illegal aliens; lowest rating ever
From this:
Seventy-two percent of New York voters who have read or heard about the [New York governor Eliot Spitzer's] proposal to allow undocumented aliens to obtain New York driver's licenses oppose the Governor's plan, while only 22 percent support it, according to a new Siena (College) Research Institute poll of registered voters released today. The Siena New York poll also shows that Eliot Spitzer’s job performance rating is lower than it has ever been, with a majority of voters saying he's doing a fair or poor job. If the 2010 gubernatorial race were held today, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, running as a Republican, would beat Democrat Spitzer 50-37 percent...
Posted to Immigration_dls at 04:07 PM
"Mexico's Fox openly calls for North American Union"
Calling all North American Union apologists. Please see this:In a promotional tour for his new book, "Revolution of Hope," Fox told NPR's "Talk of the Nation" audience: "That's part of my Americas dream, that we can build our future together. We are partners with United States and Canada through NAFTA. There are other blocs in Latin America, but at the very end a continental trade agreement and union on the long term would be a way to develop ourselves and to be able to have the standards and level of living that we all need."Related:
Vicente Fox: FTAA common currency (Amero), Hillary for president, Bill Richardson, driver's licenses, lies about heathcare...
Vicente Fox promotes North American Union (Jon Stewart)
UPDATE: It's in his book too:
...On page 101, Fox writes: "I proposed a 'NAFTA Plus' plan to President Bush and Canada's Prime Minister Jean Chretien to move us toward a single continental economic union, modeled on the European example."
On the next page, Fox notes the White House was reluctant for this theme to be discussed openly.
"Bush shot the idea down," Fox continued. "The White House sent word that life would be easier if this Mexican cowboy would stop raising hackles with his talk of a North American Union."
Posted to NAU at 12:11 PM
Down the Memory Hole with the Los Angeles Times (censors own blogger)
From this:
On Thursday night, L.A. Times political blogger Andrew Malcolm wrote a post about John Edwards's denial of an extramarital affair. When some commenters complained that the story was unsupported tabloid trash, Malcolm replied in parenthetical remarks appended to the comments, saying that it was a legitimate topic because of Edwards's denial.
If I have the sequence of events right, the L.A. Times first deleted the whole post. Then, when Patterico inquired about it they put it back, minus three final paragraphs. They also deleted the parenthetical remarks from their own bloggers. Tidy, no muss no fuss!
Posted to Bloggage at 07:56 PM
Holly Ramer, AP "reporter", helps John McCain spout massive immigration propaganda
Associated Press "reporter" Holly Ramer offers "Voter Confronts McCain on Immigration" (link), a slab of pro-massive immigration propaganda that helps show how corrupt the mainstream media is and how much of a propagandist and incompetent reporter she is. John McCain's comments also somewhat contradict his past statements:
[...McCain supports "reform" after the borders are secured...] That wasn't enough for a man who spoke up at the Hopkinton Town Hall, telling McCain that legal immigration could result in civil war in the next five years... "Do the people in Washington - the politicians and the lobbyists and the rich people writing the checks - do they understand the amount of anger the average European Christian, native-born American feels when they see their country turning into a multicultural chaos Tower of Babel?"
Certainly, a question like that will raise some eyebrows among those in Washington and other elites. But, if we're going to constantly discuss the Hispanic vote and politicians are going to feel free to pander to that supposed vote, then perhaps discussing "European Christians" shouldn't be out of bounds, even if pollsters would call them by a different name. And, a discussion of multiculturalism shouldn't be out of bounds either.
However, the intent is clear: the questioner is meant as an example of nativist sentiment. And, of course, rather than acknowledging the non-racist, non-nativist concerns of millions of Americans, McCain responded with politically-correct nothingness:
"I believe the greatest strength of America is the lady who holds her lamp behind the golden door that says send me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses... And I am grateful to live in a nation that has been enriched by people coming to our nation from around the world... I will do everything in my power to secure the borders, but I love this nation and I love the people who have come from around the world."
Obviously, he didn't answer the underlying concerns about the impacts of massive immigration and multiculturalism. Surely, it's possible to "love the people" while at the same time oppose separatist sentiments and the like. All this raises a few questions:
1. Why didn't "reporter" Holly Ramer mention that McCain himself said that unless "reform" was enacted we could have Paris-style riots? That's not the same thing as a "civil war", but it's in the same ballpark.
2. Why didn't Ramer attempt to contextualize and amplify the question, as the AP would most likely do in the case of someone supporting massive immigration?
3. Why did the AP choose that question in the first place? Even the New York Times taped McCain being asked a better question, and surely McCain and others have been asked better questions. Why suddenly rush into print one question, unless of course the goal was to show "nativist" sentiment?
4. And, going directly to Ramer's competence as a reporter, shouldn't she have asked McCain whether he truly thought that reading a poem that was later tacked on to the Statue of Liberty is a proper answer to the question? Shouldn't she have offered a more palatable version of the question and pressed McCain, mentioning that there are indeed millions of Americans who are worried about the impact of massive immigration?
5. In line with #4, exactly how many tough questions on immigration has she ever asked McCain? Can we trust someone who - believe it or not - referred to McCain's blather as "trademark straight talk"? ("McCain faces immigration worries, vows to secure borders", August 11, 2007, link).
The solution to all of these issues is to go to campaign appearance, but ask better questions and then upload the responses to Youtube. That way we can completely disintermediate hack "reporters" like Holly Ramer.
Posted to Immigration2007b at 07:34 PM
What does the Democratic Party stand for? (An Introduction)
Think you're a Republican? Think again! Dr. R. C. West of the DCNC has put together this instructional video to help show what the Democratic Party stands for and why you should join:
How many famous Democrats can you spot?
REGRETS, I'VE HAD A FEW UPDATE: While Democratic icon Gus Hall made the video - twice! - I unfortunately forgot to include pictures of Neville Chamberlain, Vidkun Quisling, and others. I also only had one piece of DailyKos content (the Joe Lieberman photoshop) and I didn't include their Ahmadinejad poll. Next time.
Posted to WackyHumor at 12:21 PM
Mitt Romney supports attrition by illegal aliens?
A blogger tried to ask Mitt Romney about his immigration positions:
...he did not address the question of the fate of the 12-20 million illegals in residence here... I tried to get near enough to ask about it. A flack intercepted me and said Mitt was not answering anymore questions, then asked me what I was going to ask. When I said it was about the illegals already here, the flack said they would just self deport...
At least he tried. Hopefully others will try to get a similar question asked, since the mainstream media is never going