Laura Ingraham Takes the Gloves Off on Tony Snow

Laura Ingraham Show ^ | June 14, 2007 | Laura Ingraham

[Lauren BaRecall]

Laura interviewed Tony Snow in the last hour of her show. In fact, she devoted the whole hour to illegal immigration. After her no holds barred interview with Tony (she wiped the floor with him!), she took phone calls and read emails that were generated in reaction to the interview.

This is MUST HEAR RADIO!!!

[Prokopton]

If Tony was back in radio, he could be a conservapurist hero.

Please. Tony never was, and never will be, a "Hero" to conservatives. Tony has always been for open borders and against enforcement of our immigration laws.

[Sloth]

That’s legal immigration. Agree with it or not, it’s a far cry from the criminal-rewarding bill under discussion these days.

[RJL]

“There are only two mysteries in the universe...women, and George Bush’s immigration stance.” (John Ziegler, KFI radio host.)

See my tag line, I have a theory about one of those.

[Iwo Jima]

Where were all these border-bots during the 2004 election? 2000? 1996? 1992? Anyone? Bueller?

Trying to get people to pay attention to what was happening to our country and getting called racist and all manner of vile names (border-bot being the favorite slur-du-jour) for their pains.

I didn't become what you would call a "border bot" until last year when I heard about Aztlan and Reconquista and what La Raza was saying for the first time.

Are you saying that the 1992 border bots are discredited and should be ignored because they have been so right for so long before other people saw and agreed with their points? Are you saying that 2006 border bots are discredited and should be ignored because they have been so recent in understanding that America is being destroyed?

Is there any time frame acceptable to you for people to come to the views on immigration that the vast majority of Americans now have?

What are your views on immigration, and when did you come to them?

Class? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

[SE Mom]

~snip~

No matter how much lipstick Washington tries to slap onto this legislative pig, it’s not going to win any beauty contests. In fact, given Congress’s track record, the bill will probably get a lot uglier — at least from the public’s point of view. And agreeing to policies before actually seeing what the policies are is a heck of a way to do business.

We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders — or at least made great headway.

That would give proponents of the bill a chance to explain why putting illegals in a more favorable position than those who play by the rules is not really amnesty.

~snip~

Fred Thompson - May 2007

[Lauren BaRecall]

Oh yes! I loved THAT! Hooray for Texans!

P.S., there are links all over this thread.

[Democrat_media]

You and Fred might think that bringing to the U.S.A "legally" 200 million relatives of the illegals who will get Amnesty with this Amnesty bill is a good thing. And it would be "legal" because this horrible Amnesty bill they are trying to ram down our throats would make chain migration legal for the 20 million illegals who get Amnesty (20 million illegals will be able to bring their family members to the U.S.A.).Chain migration along with illegal immigration is what is destroying the U.S.A. 200 million uneducated,proto socialist immigrants would turn the U.S.A into socialist Venezuela ,another Mexico,or a soicialist Cuba.

Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter for President.

Fred Thompson voted for chain migration before. Sure he says the right things now but I trust actions not words.

Voted in 1996 to continue chain migration

Sen. Fred Thompson in 1996 voted against the Simpson Amendment to S.1664. It was a vote in favor of a chain migration system that has been the primary reason for annual immigration levels snowballing from less than 300,000 in 1965 to around a million. Sen. Thompson supported provisions that allow immigrants to send for their adult relatives. Then each of those relatives can send for their and their spouse's adult relatives, creating a never-ending and ever-growing chain. The bi-partisan Barbara Jordan Commission recommended doing away with the adult relative categories (begun only in the 1950s) in order to lessen wage depression among lower-paid American workers. The Simpson Amendment attempted to carry out that recommendation. But Sen. Thompson helped kill the reform by voting with the 80-20 majority against the amendment. Sen. Thompson's vote helped continue a level of immigration that the Census Bureau projects will result in a doubled U.S. population in the next century.See detailed description

http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfile.php3?DistSend=TN&VIPID=743

Elect Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo as president.

[RockinRight]

When he voted in 1996 for this, the current amnesty bill was far off in the future.

Are you penalizing Fred for not being a fortune-teller?

[Prokopton]

You and Fred might think that bringing to the U.S.A "legally" 200 million relatives of the illegals who will get Amnesty with these Amnesty bill is a good thing.

Fred is against this "Amnesty bill". Your post doesn't make sense in that regard.

[SE Mom]

See post # 85

[mak5]

That’s Mike Gravel, current Dem presidential candidate and full time loon.

[Lauren BaRecall]

I love her - she can blowtorch with the best of them! :o)

[Maynerd]

Someday folks will get it. Mr. Smith CANNOT get to Washington, folks! And the dolts who CAN get in are not people you should look up to.

Tom Coburn Senator from Oklahoma is the exception. He is Mr. Smith personified.

[TomGuy]

Where were all these border-bots during the 2004 election? 2000? 1996? 1992? Anyone? Bueller?

They were being put down as being tinfoil alarmists, just like those now screaming out and trying to the attention of the American public about NAU, SPP, TransHighway and the Foreign Port in Kansas City, NWO.

After 2010, when the NAU becomes effective, you and others will be crying 'why didn't someone warn us?'

[truthkeeper]

You’re on a roll! (P.S...love your tagline.)

[Wallace T.]

In defense of Reagan, the numbers of illegals in the United States was far smaller in 1986 (3 million) than in 2007 (12-20 million). Reagan's policy was a failure, to be sure, but what Bush has proposed would metastasize that failure, with far greater long term burdens on the taxpayers, not to mention the effect on the political system. (Most immigrant groups, from the Scots-Irish over 200 years ago to the present, have sided with the Democrats.)

Reagan did cut and run from Beirut, but so did the Israelis, who naturally had a lot more at stake. Additionally, memories of Vietnam were a lot fresher in 1983, as the fall of Saigon had occurred only eight years earlier. With a Presidential election a year away, Reagan could not have politically afforded the sort of commitment needed for a large scale invasion. Keep in mind that he was singularly committed to the defeat of the Soviet Union and we were still fully engaged in the Cold War. Committing large resources to the Middle East at that time would have diverted funds from the much needed modernization and build-up of our air and naval forces that proved so crucial in bringing about the unraveling of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union.

In retrospect, the decision by Reagan to cut and run in Lebanon helped this nation overcome our main enemy, the Soviet Union, without firing a shot. In contrast, Bush has worked in an international environment without the immediate menace of a rival superpower.

[Democrat_media]

This Amnesty bill will make it legal for 20 million illegals to have Amnesty. And it will make it legal for them to bring 200 million of their family members ( more chain migration). Would that be right just because it is legal?

They passed this chain migration in 1965 when the Internet did not exist. So we the people did not know about it. yes it's legal but it's also deception by communists/liberals like Kennedy and LBJ and the Kennedys.

But now we have the Internet. And we stopped the bill last week because we did it on the Internet with sites like this and blogs that informed the people. We are a government of the people, by the people and for the people not of elite liberals making deals in back-rooms and not telling us what's in bills.

Fred voted for chain migration. And that is not right. This country is our property and we can't bring in the 4 billion poor 3rd world people just because they want to come to the U.S.A.

Duncan Hunter/Tancredo

[Democrat_media]

Those are just words.

I trust only actions.

Look at my previous post to see Fred’s actual actions, voting for Chain migration.

[Sloth]

This Amnesty bill will make it legal for 20 million illegals to have Amnesty. And it will make it legal for them to bring 200 million of their family members ( more chain migration). Would that be right just because it is legal?

No, but what Thompson voted on >10 years ago has no relationship to what's being pushed today. And there are a number of us who are adamantly against illegal immigration, but not against immigration generally.

[CottonBall]

Reagan is a darling because he cut-and-ran from Beirut and actually did give millions of illegals amnesty and never did ANYTHING about border security.

You are conveniently ignoring the facts at the time of the 1986 amnesty. First, Reagan was honest and called it 'amnesty', unlike the current liar-in-chief. Second, Reagan went for the amnesty compromise because he wanted the border and workplace enforcement provisions in the bill. He believed it when the Dems said it would be the LAST amnesty ever and would solve all the illegal immigration problems. The Democratic congress then neglected to fund the enforcement provisions. Reagan later said that the bill was a big, big mistake.

Compare that to the current illegal-lover in the WH, whose intentions are the exact opposite of Reagan's.