As Congress stalls on immigration, a backlash brews

Christian Science Monitor ^ | September 08, 2006 | Amanda Paulson

[Graybeard58]

Chicago activists marched 50 miles to House Speaker Dennis Hastert's house last weekend to protest congressional inaction over reforming immigration laws and what they say is his anti-immigrant stance. In Phoenix, protesters rallied at the state's Capitol, also to highlight the stalemate in Washington.

Bob Johnson is equally exercised. The structural engineer from Buffalo Grove, Ill., argues the other side of 2006's Great Immigration Debate - that the US needs to send home illegal immigrants and gain better control of its borders - but he says he cannot believe Congress is punting on immigration reform. He's been writing letters to his congressman and senators and says he may not vote in November or he may vote for a third-party or write-in candidate.

The decision by congressional leaders not to try to bridge the big gulf between the House and Senate versions of immigration reform, at least not before the November midterm elections, is touching off a backlash that may deliver a sting to some incumbent lawmakers.

How big the backlash grows may not be known until the day after the election, but it's surfacing in blogs, letters to the editor, and record-low approval ratings for Capitol Hill.

"When you have both Bob Novak and David Broder writing the same column about Congress's failure to act on immigration, you know something is wrong," says Tamar Jacoby, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute in New York, referring to two well-known columnists who typically have very different views. "People on both the right and left will see it as a huge failure" if Congress ends its term without a bill.

Certainly, many Americans are worked up over immigration. The issue sparked huge rallies and marches in the spring, and has been the subject of endless Lou Dobbs reports. Over the summer, House

[RKV]

We need no more laws on this subject. Clearly, it is illegal for foreigners to enter the US without the permission of our government. What we need now is enforcement of existing law. If a wall helps enforce existing law, then let's allocate the money to build one. Otherwise, no guest workers, no amnesty, no new laws required. At. All. None.

[Doc Hunter]

We can start by voting out the incumbents. That will send a message. If they don't get it, vote the rest of them out. Congress was granted that implicit authority in the Constitution of the United States.

[starfish923]

It's not about immigration, it's about ILLEGAL ALIENS, just like Sheriff Joe Arapaoi says.

Using the term "immigration" or "Illegal immigration" makes the issue murky. ILLEGAL ALIENS.

[DoughtyOne]

I suspect the CSM would like nothing more than to see a lot of Republicans sit home this fall. I see a lot of articles like this these days. There seems to be a conserted effort by the left to start a ground-swell in this direction. I doubt it will work.

Republicans have plenty to be angry as hell about. I still don't think they'll turn the House or Senate over the idiots of likes of the Left in the United States.

If they should, the RP leadership will have nobody to blame but themselves. I do wish they'd pull their heads out and consult a primer on Conservatism before this gets real ugly.

[DoughtyOne]

Agreed!

[Continental Soldier]

What possible excuse can congressmen bring to the public to justify their lack of action on securing the borders? And about those demonstrations against border control, what is up with those? Am I to seriously beleive that American citizens, born or naturalized, are actually out there campaigning for citizenship rights for illegals, for people who have not taken the legal route to citizenship, for people who have broken the law and are now freeloading on the American taxpaying public?
Who are those demonstrators? If they are, themselves, illegals, what a perfect opportunity to round them up and send them packing!

[EGPWS]

We need no more laws on this subject.

Exactly!

What we need is less politicizing and more common sense in government.

[pabianice]

Ah, the Christian Science Leftist strikes again. Mary Eddy would plotz is she read this rag today...

[elfman2]

"Chicago activists Democrats marched 50 miles to House Speaker Dennis Hastert's house "

Who did shelving this bill hurt again?

[dirtboy]

Wishful thinking journalism. No bill is better than a bad bill.

[dirtboy]

We can start by voting out the incumbents.

Let's keep the incumbents who are serious about border security. The House is not the problem here.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Agreed. More Republicans are for border security than they are for amnesty.

[dirtboy]

I wouldn't mind seeing the likes of Chafee as a sacrificial RINO in the Senate. The House, however, has held the line on this issue. I would like ten minutes in a closed room with many of the House pubbies and a cattle prod, just to zot some fiscal sense into them. But on the illegal immigration front, they have done fairly well.

[radar101]

Where is the BS Alert?

[mrsmith]

"The decision by congressional leaders not to try to bridge the big gulf between the House and Senate versions of immigration reform, at least not before the November midterm elections, "

An excellent idea. This election will be about terrorism and illegal immigration.

Two losers for the Dems.

If the Republicans don't deliver though, it'll be "Madame President" in 2009.

[nmh]

That's what I don't understand!

ENFORCE THE EXISTING LAWS!

ILLEGAL aliens are ILLEGA, hence DEPORT THEM.

[MNJohnnie]

"e can start by voting out the incumbents."

Perhaps the Always Angry crowd might explain something?

Not only that. Perhaps the Always Angry MIGHT want to consider there will be NO legal way to go back and UNDO the blanket amnesty the Democrats will pass EVEN if Conservatives win back the Congress at some future point.
Not guest worker, a real full bore legalization of all the illegals.

Maybe the Always Angry might want to keep in mind it was Senate Democrats that filibustered to keep any of the US House Republican Boarder Enforcement provisions out of the Senate immigration bill.

Why do the Always Angry Fringers think firing the ONLY people who have been consistently tough about Border Enforcement (US House GOP) in order to put the Congress in the hands of Democrats (who will vote all most 100% against it) is such a "brilliant" political move for Conservatives? EVEN if their magic fantasy of a political wet dream that Conservatives magically win back the Congress, it will be legally impossible to ram thru retroactive changes to the full Amnesty the Democrats will have passed while they control Congress.

This constant advocation by supposedly "Conservatives" that voters should completely destroy any hope of any part of the Antis position on Immigration actually ever being enacted into Law in order to "teach Bush a Lesson" is simply politically insane. It is the babble of people who either know nothing at all about how politics work or are simply hiding their real political allegiance to the Democrat party under the guise of being "betrayed Conservatives".


I guess the Conservative Political Suicide Club would rather have a Democrat Congress who would legislate these sorts of things when in power.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1697413/posts

Senate Democratic leadership threatens Disney with legal and legislative sanctions
americablog.blogspot.com ^ | September 07, 2006 | John in DC

Posted on 09/07/2006 6:12:34 PM CDT by Mo1

Senate Democratic leadership threatens Disney with legal and legislative sanctions
by John in DC - 9/07/2006 06:02:00 PM

This letter was sent today by the entire Democratic leadership of the US Senate. This letter is such a major shot across the bow of Disney, it's not even funny. It is FILLED with veiled threats, both legal and legislative, against Disney. US Senators don't make threats like this, especially the entire Democratic leadership en masse, unless they mean it. Disney is in serious trouble.
Read it, then read my analysis of it below:
September 7, 2006
Mr. Robert A. Iger
President and CEO
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank CA 91521
Dear Mr. Iger,
We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.
The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.
Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility. Indeed, the very events themselves on 9/11, so tragic as they were, demand extreme care by any who attempt to use those events as part of an entertainment or educational program. To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”
Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.
Despite claims by your network’s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.
Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said, “As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission’s findings the way that they had.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]
Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as “deeply flawed” and said of the program’s depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, “It’s 180 degrees from what happened.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]
Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, “he thought they were making things up.” [MSNBC, September 7, 2006]
Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]
That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.
These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.
Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.
As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, “It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why – so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer.”
Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Sincerely,
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Byron Dorgan
The Senate Democratic leadership just threatened Disney's broadcast license. Not the use of the word "trustee" at the beginning of the letter and "trust" at the end. This is nothing less than an implicit threat that if Disney tries to meddle in the US elections on behalf of the Republicans, they will pay a very serious price when the Democrats get back in power, or even before.
This raises the stakes incredibly for Disney.







http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1696833/posts?page=1

Senate Rejects New Restraints on Cluster Bombs
FoxNews.com ^ | 9/6/06 | Associated Press


Posted on 09/06/2006 10:22:07 PM CDT by kerryusama04


WASHINGTON — The Senate on Wednesday rejected a move by Democrats to stop the Pentagon from using cluster bombs near civilian targets and to cut off sales unless purchasers abide by the same rules.

Snip


Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Patrick Leahy have long sought to keep cluster bombs from being used near concentrated areas of civilians. They say that as many as 40 percent of the munitions fail to detonate on impact — they can still can explode later — leaving innocent civilians and children vulnerable to injury or death long after hostilities have ceased.


(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

[nmh]

That's what I don't understand!

ENFORCE THE EXISTING LAWS!

ILLEGAL aliens are ILLEGAL, hence DEPORT THEM.

What is so difficult about that?

If they want to create NEW laws, how about this -

1. Require employees to provide proof of citizenship.
2. Fine the hell out of employers who insist on hiring ILLEGAL aliens.
3. Require proof of citizenship to rent or own property.
4. Deport illegals. 5. Make ENGLISH the required language to learn and use at work.

That's just for starters.

[Lurker]

The actual count of 'marchers' last weekend was 50. That's right 50. I know because my department was involved in providing security.

The only time there were more people 'marching' was when TV cameras were scheduled to appear. Then the Rainbow Push people bussed another couple of hundred yapping members of Rent A Mob, Inc in.

At no time were there more than 250 people all the way across DuPage County.

L