Posted on 03/29/2006 5:58:27 AM PST by dinasour
I cannot tell you how angry it makes when when people like Tim Russert and Chris Matthews try to make this man out to be a liar, a thing he most certainly is not.
Thanks Ali, I just bookmarked it.
Read this one from the past, ironic:
Oil for Illegals?
Mexico, and the Democrats, have a fit over House vote.
Last Thursday, the House International Relations Committee narrowly passed a resolution introduced by Rep. Cass Ballenger of North Carolina (R.) requiring that any amnesty deal for the five million Mexican illegal aliens in the United States be linked to an opening of Mexico's state-controlled oil industry to investment by U.S. companies.
Then the fun started.
The Mexican press exploded in outrage. "Blackmail!" cried the archbishop of Mexico City. "Stupidity!" said a representative of the oil workers' union. A plot to "annex Latin America," intoned Nobel peace-prize winner Adolfo Pérez Esquivel. An example of U.S. lawmakers' "ignorance," "arrogance," and "imperial vision," according to a Mexican senator. The head of the leftist PRD called on President Vicente Fox to "put on his pants" — act like a man — and oppose the proposal. Fox finally joined the tsunami of criticism on Sunday and categorically rejected any privatization of Pemex, Mexico's state oil monopoly.
None of this should come as a surprise. Mexico's seizure of foreign oil companies' assets in 1938 is central to modern Mexican nationalism; state control of the oil industry is actually written into the constitution. What's more, there are midterm elections for the lower house of Mexico's Congress coming up in July. Embracing privatization of Pemex would not be a vote getter, to say the least. And according to William and Mary political scientist George Grayson, author of Oil and Mexican Foreign Policy, "unless the PAN makes notable strides in these contests, the beleaguered Fox will find himself a lame duck with three years-plus remaining in his term."
But however outraged the Mexicans are, and however different these two issues are, it only seems fair to link them. After all, Mexico is asking us to start down the path of eliminating our southern border and embracing a European Union-style shared sovereignty — the least we can expect is for them also to eliminate barriers that are important to their nation.
Nor has this idea come out of the blue. In the July 30, 2001, Weekly Standard, economist Irwin Stelzer suggested just such an approach. Stelzer wrote that "monopoly oil prices" could offset a good part of the economic growth assumed in the president's tax cut and that "the finger of blame points squarely at Mexico." He wrote that we should insist that Mexico cooperate with the United States and other pro-free market countries and stop supporting the OPEC oil cartel and its leaders such as the Marxist Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Stelzer said that before Bush strikes any deal on amnesty, "he should insist on the free movement of ...oil from Mexico" and the opening of Mexico's oil resources to American investment.
While Mexican opposition may be no surprise, the Democrats' furor over the oil-for-illegals approach is, given the importance of Mexico's oil to the United States and the huge costs that an illegal-alien amnesty would impose on us. After all, they have no chance whatever of getting an amnesty through Congress without some kind of sweetener, and this would seem an obvious candidate.
But it is not to be. Rep. Robert Menendez was so angry that he held a press conference last Friday denouncing the resolution. He was joined by Rep. Ciro Rodriguez and Silvestre Reyes; the latter, a past head of the Hispanic Caucus, said the amendment was an "insult" to Mexico and indicative of an "insane and outofcontrol attitude on the part of a country [the United States] that believes that as a matter of public foreign policy bullying is acceptable." It was Menendez who prompted the whole dust-up in the first place; Ballenger's amendment, to the State Department appropriations bill, was offered as a substitute to a proposal by Menendez calling for the conclusion of a "migration" accord which, among other things, "respect[ed] the human dignity of all migrants, regardless of their status" — i.e., an amnesty for illegal aliens.
The partisan nature of the vote suggests the depth of opposition in the president's own party for his preferred immigration policies. The only Republican to vote against Ballenger's oil-for-illegals linkage was Pete King (who has a career grade of F on the reformist Americans for Better Immigration website). Even such flamboyant Republican supporters of high immigration as Ileana Ros Lehtinen (career grade of F), Chris Smith (D-), and Steve Chabot (D+) voted for the linkage.
However bad the immigration positions of these Republicans, they at least understand that a massive illegal-alien amnesty must be met with some gesture from Mexico. But the Democratic-party/Mexican-government position on amnesty for illegals appears to be all quid from the United States and no quo from Mexico.
Stay tuned.
http://nationalreview.com/comment/comment-krikorian051403.asp
Me too!
That's why we are here.We set the story straight in the New Media!
Texasbluebell posted this on another thread and I wanted to share it with ya'll:
Ted Kennedy said 40 years ago:
"The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."
(U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the
Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965)
I long ago gave up on expecting any reasonableness, objectivity or fairness out of Matthews. Russert has gone off the deep end as well. He always cross examines the VP; he softballs the DUmmies.
Sono, I think you're right.
FWIW, Here are a couple of suggestions. Most of these are conservatives and/or R, therefore, I suspect to be 'fair and balanced' Tony needs to have someone like Bill R on, and we have to overlook his spin and pandering:
Senator Jeff Sessions or John Cornyn (sane voices on the Senate Judiciary Committee)
House Members:
John Shadegg (AZ)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL)
Henry Bonilla (TX)
Lincoln Diaz-Balart (FL)
Ex House Member: Bob Dornan (CA)
Linda Chavez:
Focus on Immigration Facts
by Linda Chavez
Posted Mar 29, 2006
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=13615
Thomas Sowell:
Guests or gate crashers? Part II
Mar 29, 2006
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2006/03/29/191639.html
Tony Blankley (see my post of his article above)
Cal Thomas:
Whose country is this?
Mar 28, 2006
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/calthomas/2006/03/28/191509.html
"the feds have no desire to defend the law"
Absolutely agreed. We, in GA are close to having the Gov. sign strict immigration policies. My fear is that the Congress will interfere in state laws by imposing their own brand of socialism upon the states.
I wish everyone would remember what TK said all those decades ago. If we had a real media, someone somewhere would call him on it.
His statement needs to be shouted from the rooftops. Thanks for posting it again!
Those are great suggestions, SC. I proposed Senator Sessions earlier. Tony says he is going to have Tancredo on, and he is a fine fellow, but he has gotten himself the reputation of a firebrand on this issue and I thought someone like Sessions, who is really smart and well spoken on this issue, would be a nice change and not bring the appearance of any baggage.
Peter King opposed Dubai as contrary to US interests yet fully supports Mexico's interests. Farmingville, not Brooklyn, must loom large on his horizons.
Thank YOU, tbb, for finding it and posting it in the first place. I saved it and intend to use it over and over.
Thanks for the links. After seeing the demonstrations live and in-person, I REALLY don't like what is happening here.
"The feds have no desire to defend the law. They have made the choice and it's to sell out for a few votes."
~~~~~~~~~
It's beyond belief that they have no wish to follow the US Constitution, which they are sworn to uphold.
Article 1. Section 8. Clause 15.
[The Congress shall have Power]
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
and
Article 4. Section 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican
Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;
"There are no immediate plans," joked one local paper, "to tax the air we breathe--not this year, at least."
And if you don't pay, they will through you out the air lock?
Great!
have no fear they are more scared of you than the illegals.
After about 20 rounds of drinks! LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.