Posted on 05/30/2006 6:08:51 AM PDT by NapkinUser
Quick: What do 61% of Republican and 10% of Democrat Senators have in common? They represent America—at least on the issue of immigration.
These numbers, drawn from the recorded vote on last week’s disastrous amnesty-granting immigration “reform” bill in the Senate, starkly illustrate two related insights about the ongoing illegal immigration crisis. One is that, despite gleeful media reports that “Congressional Republicans” are at odds with most of their supporters on the immigration issue, the great majority of Republican congressmen are not.
The Republican leadership of the House of Representatives refused to even consider amnesty, legalization, or a guest worker program for illegal aliens in their border security bill; and 32 of the 55 Republicans in the Senate opposed the Senate amnesty, despite enormous pressure from the President and their leadership. The bill passed the Senate, despite nearly 2-1 opposition from Republicans, on the strength of overwhelming 90% support from Democrats.
Essentially, the President and the rest of the open borders minority conspired with Democrats to defeat the Republican majority.
Which leads us to the second insight: the strange pro-amnesty coalition consists, therefore, principally of Democrats. Should anger over the immigration debacle cause the Senate, or especially the House, to fall into Democrat’s hands in the November elections, the result will be an unstoppable march toward amnesty and massive, unimaginable increases in both legal and illegal immigration.
On the other hand, if a Republican-controlled Congress also delivers amnesty and unimaginable increases in both legal and illegal immigration, who cares who wins in November? This dilemma places the pro-enforcement, secure borders grass roots conservatives in a delicate position. We must find a way to defeat the powerful minority within the Republican Party that wishes to throw open the borders entirely, without also defeating the majority that wishes to secure them.
We cannot, therefore, stay home in November or become demoralized and walk away from political activism. In fact, we must redouble our activism or certainly see an overwhelming and irreversible change for the worse befall the country. But we cannot continue to offer blanket support to the Republican Party as a whole.
It is thus time to begin withholding donations from the general party apparatus. When you donate to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, for example, you are donating to help re-elect both Jeff Sessions and Lincoln Chaffee and you are giving a vote of confidence to the current leadership of the Party—wherein lies much of the pro-amnesty minority. A less self-contradictory approach would be to donate directly to the campaigns of pro-enforcement politicians, or donate to political action committees, such as Tom Tancredo’s Team America PAC, that reward only those candidates that wish to secure our nation’s borders and visa systems.
Once amnesty is passed, it can never be undone, and the human floodgates will open. This issue is therefore important enough by itself to act on, to vote on, and to donate on. But, interestingly, there is another reason why it would benefit conservatives to take the illegal immigration battle to the long-term and stick to their guns vehemently: just look at who the pro-amnesty Republicans are.
The 32 Senate Republicans voting against amnesty and for better enforcement have an impressive lifetime voting rating from the American Conservative Union of 91 out of 100. This means that on the whole range of political issues, the secure borders coalition is very solidly conservative.
The 23 Republican Senators that voted for the amnesty, by contrast, have a lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union of just 77 out of 100, a full 14 points lower. This should not come as much of a surprise when one considers that to support amnesty for illegal aliens, the 23 broke with their base and joined with Democrats to defeat the majority position within their own party.
Every so-called RINO, or “Republican In Name Only,” within the Senate voted for amnesty. The issue is shaping up to be a very informative indicator of a candidate’s larger set of beliefs. Many of the Republicans touting amnesty have not just broken with their conservative core supporters over one issue. They have broken with them time and again.
Like a number of lesser internal conflicts over the past year or so, the battle over immigration does not threaten to split the Republican Party, so much as further define it as the party of conservatism, giving voters a clear choice between Republicans and Democrats. This is not a battle to be avoided. Immigration and border security could very well become the high-profile litmus test issues for the next several years.
Let the pro-amnesty RINOs (El RINOs?) get their support from the illegal aliens they believe they are so wisely courting. Give your support to the Republicans that are still courting you. But above all, do not give up and go away quietly.
Mr. Johnson, a writer and medical researcher in Cambridge, MA., is a regular contributor to Human Events. His column generally appears on Mondays. Archives and additional material can be found at www.macjohnson.com
Best of the Best (100 ACU rating):
George Allen (R-VA): Nay
Sam Brownback (R-KS): Yaa
Conrad Burns (R-MT): Nay
Tom Coburn (R-OK): Nay
Mike Crapo (R-ID): Nay
John Ensign (R-NV): Nay
James Inhofe (R-OK): Nay
Johnny Isakson (R-GA): Nay
Jon Kyl (R-AZ): Nay
Mel Martinez (R-FL): Yea
Mitch McConnell (R-KY): Yea
Jeff Sessions (R-AL): Nay
Worst of the worst (0 rating from ACU)
Jon Corzine (D-NJ): NV
Richard Durbin (D-IL): Yea
Edward Kennedy (D-MA): Yea
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ): Yea
Patrick Leahy (D-VT): Yea
Patty Murray (D-WA): Yea
Jack Reed (D-RI): Yea
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD): Yea
Should read:
Incredibly, Chaffee actually voted AGAINST the excellent conservative Justice Alito.
Now that is as far beyond the pale as you can get.
Chaffee is a joke.
Unfortunately, he is going to win reelection, with a lot of his votes coming from the RATS voters in his very, liberal state.
Than I have a ques for you, why are members of our party VOTING WITH and for THE LIBERAL socialists?
This Senate version is a disaster , yes 23 of the rino's voted in FAVOR of the libs and with the libs, they may be rino's but how dare they vote against the party they proclaim to be with.
We are all well aware of what this Country will be like IF dem libs take power BUT our side is giving them power now by voting with and for their disastrous bills.
WE are NOT allowing dems to take power the rino's are.
The rino's are ruining this country by allowing the dems to give amnesty to illegals and not only amnesty but social security benefits, amnesty for the illegals employers, welfare benefits, EIC benefits basically the entire country.!
We should not be blamed the rinos are to blame they are giving away power!
The Senators who voted against this horrendous sick socialist bill have been sent emails thanking them for staying true to Conservative ideals and we are indeed grateful to them but right now it is a lose lose situation unless House can pull it out of the fire!
Building on post #21, out of 12 senators with 100 ACU ratings, 9 voted for against this amnesty bill. And six out of seven of the senators with a ZERO rating from the ACU voted for this amnesty bill, and it would have been seven out of seven if Corzine hadn't left office to serve as New Jersey governor.
And how do you propose getting rid of people who are not up for reelection ? My solution is to get rid of the democrats who are up for reelection.
Because they think the eventualy senate/house conference bill will be better than doing nothing. Further, the senate needs 60 to pass anything.
From NationalLedger.com
Commentary
Bush: ‘Read My Lips – No New Amnesty’
By Nicholas Stix
May 29, 2006
When George Herbert Walker Bush was the Republican presidential nominee for the first time, in 1988, he told the Republican National Convention, “Read my lips: No new taxes.” It became his most effective campaign slogan, and one of the keys to his electoral victory.
But Bush the Elder ultimately raised taxes. In 1992, his base responded variously by staying at home or by voting for third-party candidate Ross Perot, thus bringing brought about the election of Bill Clinton.
Immigrants are Our Future
Bush the Younger fancies himself much smarter than his father. Thus, he did not announce, during either of his presidential campaigns, his plan to grant an amnesty to what now amounts to – according to pro-illegal immigration Bear Stearns economists Robert Justich and Betty Ng – over 20 million illegal immigrants plus their parents plus their children plus their siblings plus anyone who will pay them to say they are blood relatives, much less his plan to bring in, according to an analysis by Sen. Jeff Sessions’ (R, AL) staff, another 200 million legal immigrants over the next 20 years, or to mention the tidal wave of new illegal immigration (another 100 million?) this amnesty would bring about. He knew it would cost him the election, if he did. And so, he bided his time.
Well, George W. Bush still isn’t taking any chances, and so when he finally announced his amnesty plan, he did the equivalent of saying, ‘Read my lips: No new amnesty.’ (“What I have just described is not amnesty.”) He figures that if he lies enough about his planned amnesty, people won’t figure it out until it’s too late. “Too late” means after the coming fall elections. And to sweeten the pot for his social and religious conservative base (or as Karl Rove would call it, "the suckers"), he will propose a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
This is all a word game. Bush is simply calling amnesty by other names: “temporary worker program,” “rational middle ground,” etc. He insists that he seeks amnesty, er, rational middle ground only for veteran criminals, but not for rookies.
“That middle ground recognizes that there are differences between an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently and someone who has worked here for many years, and has a home, a family, and an otherwise clean record.”
And yet, as Bush well knows, under the Treason Plan (known variously as the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act and as S. 2611) he champions and the Senate passed, 62-36, on Thursday, we will end up with amnestied, naturalized, “temporary workers”; amnestied, naturalized, recently arrived illegals; and amnestied, naturalized, long-term illegals. But for treason and democide to prevail, the House must pass its own version. Thus, there is still hope for America.
That Burning Sensation
The man who for years portrayed himself as a straight talker, is peeing on our leg, and telling us that it’s raining.
I voted for George W. Bush in 2000, and again in 2004. As the saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”
I suppose President Bush can tell himself that his proposal isn’t really an illegal immigration “amnesty,” because along with immigration law and America’s borders, he is eliminating the very concept of American citizenship. No legal citizens, no illegal immigrants.
The President says he is sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to the Mexican border, but is sending them unarmed, and in fact, not stationing them on the border at all, but in offices, where they will do “paper work.”
But that’s just a stopgap. Mr. Bush’s plan is, by the end of 2008, for the 6,000 do-nothing National Guardsmen to be replaced by 6,000 new, do-nothing Border Patrol agents. That’s over $400 million of nothing per year, courtesy of the American taxpayer.
If Citizens Didn’t Exist, We’d Have to Invent Them
And yet, the ruling elites will still need something to distinguish themselves from the rest of those whose pockets they’re busy picking. And so, there will still be illegal immigration in-between serial amnesties that will occur every few years, because the elites will demand ever cheaper baby sitters, gardeners, cooks, cleaning ladies, dog walkers, car washers, etc. The elites’ll show how morally superior they are to us paupers who can’t afford illegal servants, by periodically demanding amnesty for their servants. This will also endear them to the servants. Then, as soon as the newest mass amnesty goes through, they’ll fire their newly legalized servants, and replace them for even less with new illegals. (‘I’m sorry, Maria, but I just can’t afford you anymore.’)
Soy Un Yahoo
Neocon godfatherette William Kristol has his own word for commoners: “Yahoos.”
Echoing the Liar-in-Chief, and apparently cognizant that consistency is one of the three laws of lying; Kristol denies that the Bush amnesty plan is, in fact, an amnesty plan. Unfortunately, however, like President Bush, Bill Kristol seems unaware of the first law of lying: Plausibility.
At this rate, George W. Bush’s greatest political achievement will obtain in having rescued Bill Clinton from historical infamy. The Clintons’ reign of crime looks better with each passing day.
Taps?
On Memorial Day, in honoring our war dead from the Revolutionary War unto the War on Terror, we say “Lest we forget.” At Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln exhorted, “that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.”
In the new dispensation according to George W. Bush, however, those men did die in vain. Bush fully intends to surrender our patrimony.
If the House goes along with the Senate and the People permit it, this Memorial Day will prove to have been a time to grieve for America itself.
The new Bush plan is the ultimate in taxation without representation. It is revolutionary in its provocation and in its consequences. Perhaps we should stop calling the plan’s patron President Bush, and instead start calling him King George.
We the People survived a civil war, but can we survive George W. Bush?
You don't win the point by taking my reply out of context. Savage Beast had claimed that 'we' will take the RINOs out in the primaries, and I was saying that idea wouldn't work, because so few of them are up for re-election in 2006.
This is why it is critical that the House reject the Senate bill now, and why our efforts need to be concentrated on pressuring all House members to reject the Senate bill. No bill is better, much better, than the Senate bill.
But please tell us which Dimocrat Senators who are up for re-election in 2006 you have a plan to get rid of. Which ones are vulnerable?
What can we do?
Sorry about taking your reply out of context.
We can beat cantwell and stabenow. Stabenow is vulnerable as are all MI democrats because the auto industry has put the MI economy in the toilet. We can also take Sarbanes (retiring) seat in MD. We can take NJ with Kean over Menedez. We need to hold Santorum's seat in PA. These are the high priority elections, and not trying to sack dewine and mccain. Sacking dewine and mccain are counter productive at this point.
Immigration reform isn't the only issue where conservatives have split with Bush and the GOP`s pro-amnesty Senators. Bush and this GOP Congress have spent the taxpayers money like old fashioned liberals and expanded the federal bureaucracy like no one since LBJ. Throw into this mix a strong globalist mindset that includes continued liberal immigration policy and what you get is an administration and a Congress that is anything but conservative on domestic issues. America will be fortunate if HR4437 becomes the law of the land and not the Senate's version, S.2611.
We will remember who they are and patiently wait until they are up for re-election. The years go by fast and their time will come. Senator Coburn got in at the primary level with grassroots effort, albeit an open seat, defeating the party pick Republican.
Fun playing the 'media slant' game isn't it? Not always so easy to clearly identify the particular slant in a piece, and then identify the actual opposite, which is often a fair approximation of good policy.( e.g.: media slant: 'Republicans in trouble over immigration'; Semi-opposite: republicansmajority shouldn't be in danger ; Actual opposite: Democrats in danger over sovereignty issue)
And it's going to stay number one until amnesty is defeated and they enforce the law. NOT pass laws to enforce the law, but actually DO IT.
Anyway, if you have someone that has rejected the President, McCain and Democrats on this issue by all means vote for them. Campaign for them, and protect them from those pressuring them to falter. As said above, though, give directly to the candidate. Otherwise they'll use your money to attack people that challenge the RINO's.
No RINO shall ever get my support again and this vote is key to determining who they are.
Focus our efforts on the House to defeat the Senate bill. Then see where we stand.
But if the House folds and we end up with much of the Senate bill enacted, then I'll probably stay home in November. In Oklahoma, we don't have the option of voting 3rd party.
Do you remember the names of all those who voted in favor of that retoactive tax increase back during Clinton's reign? How many got re-elected?
Very interesting point, PC, one that had escaped me. If the Republicans had enough sense to deserve the authority they now hold, they would exploit this to the fullest. On the other hand, if they had that much sense, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in and we wouldn't be furious with them.
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.