Blog @ MoreWhat.com

As early as June 8, 2009 a formal restart of the shamnesty movement will occur in the Obama White House. At least one report confirms what most of us already knew. Shamnesty will once again be the top issue in Washington later in 2009. But you had better get your opposition strategy activated long before then as it may only be a matter of 60 liberal votes along with any mindless RINOs that decides the issue if pressure is not applied starting now. 2010 is not far off and we all know politicians like only one thing better than getting elected. That is getting re-elected. And a vote for shamnesty is just one more reason to throw the bums out.

Immigration reform could emerge again in the fall
By Steve Stoddard and J. Taylor Rushing
Posted: 05/25/09 09:31 AM [ET]

Senate Democrats may be close to 60 votes on a measure that would represent the first step towards immigration reform under President Obama.

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act is a concept dear to Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin’s (D-Ill.) heart, and while health care reform may get this summer’s headlines in Washington, the DREAM Act may be a sleeper.

The Dream Act has been around for a while and like the shamnesty defeat in the summer of 2007 it has been shot down once. Together with yes votes on bailouts any member of Congress voting for shamnesty risks defeat in 2010 unless they are secure in a liberal saturated district willing to open all borders and ignore the rule of law.

All the Dream Act does is give illegals one more reason to violate the law and enter this country without lawfully engaging the process. Rather than offer an unnecessary carrot to break the law, Congress should encourage and assist the executive branch or law enforcement with the stick they need to eliminate illegal immigration. This is not a call to abolish immigration but illegal immigration. There is a big difference. But liberals for open borders and unregulated immigration prefer to label those opposed to illegal immigration as xenophobic. Yes, there is no shortage of liberal labels to muddy the water on issues.

So far it is no surprise that Arlen Specter, RINO extraordinaire and now GOP defector, will support whatever the Democrats propose. Other notable RINO looking Senators are Lugar, Lott and Wicker.

It will be tougher this time than the last to defeat shamnesty. But that is not reason for concern but increased effort and attitude.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Ridge May Run for Specter’s Senate Seat
By Chris Cillizza W
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge (R) is seriously considering a 2010 bid for the Senate seat held by Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter and will make his decision in the next two weeks, according to several sources familiar with his thinking.

Ridge is perhaps the state’s most decorated Republican, having held a House seat for more than a decade, spent eight years as governor and served as the first secretary of homeland security under President George W. Bush. He was also mentioned as a possible vice presidential pick for Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) in 2008.

If he ran, he would almost certainly face primary opposition from former congressman Pat Toomey, a conservative who came within two points of knocking off Specter in the 2004 Republican primary. Toomey has made it clear that he is in the race regardless of whether Ridge, who is considered to be a moderate, runs.

Probably best known outside of Pennsylvania as the first Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge is a Viet Nam era veteran, former Erie County Assistant DA, former six term US Congressman and former Governor of the state of Pennsylvania. With all the scrutiny these days on candidates’ military service his record may be a target for opponents as well as his pro-choice Republican stance if he eventually runs for the Senate seat held by Specter the defector in 2010.

With Toomey still a question mark versus Arlen Specter as well as the renegade antics of Rep Sestak (D-PA) who is the highest ranking former military officer to serve in Congress (retired US Navy rear admiral) the impact of Specter’s move to the Democratic party will be analyzed for some time to come.

Sestak also said he would not let Democratic leaders in Washington push him out of the race. President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have promised to raise money for Specter and campaign on his behalf during the 2010 Democratic primary.

Wikipedia includes a criticism of Sestak from Americans Against Hate for speaking at a fundraiser for CAIR based on ties to Hamas and another for his demands on staff to work hours that are excessive by Capitol Hill standards. He has lost 13 staffers for his ‘toughness’ philosophy requiring 14 hour days seven days a week.

Pat Toomey has been a GOP Congressman from PA for ten years.

Polling suggests that Ridge would be more competitive than Toomey against Specter, who left the GOP last week, in a general election. In a new survey by Quinnipiac University, Specter leads Ridge by a narrow margin of 46 percent to 43 percent, while he holds a 20-point margin over Toomey.

“This is a statement of the obvious fact that Pat Toomey is not yet well known by statewide general-election voters,” Toomey communications director Nachama Soloveichik said about the Quinnipiac numbers. “Where he is well known, by general-election voters in the swing 15th District and by statewide Republicans, he is overwhelmingly popular.”

Aside from the added majority voting strength suggested by Specter officially defecting to the Democratic party this move is still viewed as a wild card for liberals given the record of this Senator. For now, the outcome of the 2010 election for this senate seat may have nothing but upside for the GOP. If the challengers do not succeed Specter may become a drag on the Democratic party. If Ridge or Toomey win it would cement the upside for Republicans. If Sestak would continue and defeat Specter it may still be a net gain for the GOP. Of course it could simply remain as it is now. Nothing more than a confirmation that Specter was never a conservative and offered nothing of value to the Republican party.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Most reports on the official political treason of Arlen Specter were limited to rehashing the current troubles of the GOP or announcing that Specter will now cast his liberal votes for the Democrats rather than the Republicans or more correctly as a Democrat rather than a Republican. It that is what is important or meaningful about this story than he might as well take Snowe and Collins with him. But a blog post at USN&WR may be more on point.

On the flip side, once Franken is seated, the Democrats will have that magical thing, a “filibuster-proof majority.” But that presupposes a level of ideological cohesion that may not be possible in American politics. Will everyone in the Democratic caucus, from Joe Lieberman and Arlen Specter all the way through Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer, be able to agree on a reform of the healthcare system? On a second stimulus package? On an immigration reform? I’m not so sure.

That is just the final paragraph from the post but ideological cohesion is the theme. How often do you suppose a Congressman’s vote is determined by ideology? Isn’t it more likely that it is based on political considerations? Does party line vote mean political cohesion or mass political cover? Even if a Congressional voter actually votes their conscience you can be certain political survival entered the analysis just like Specter changing to the opposition party.

And where is Joe Lieberman in this discussion? How is what Lieberman did any different from what Specter did aside from the fact the party consideration was essentially reversed. Talk radio and GOP members who expressed an opinion seemed quite pleased with Lieberman’s decision. So is it strictly political how they are reacting to Specter’s decision now?

This is the nonsense that needs to be eliminated from ‘governing’ just as much as corruption, earmarks, pork or any other plague which reduces the process to something less than of, by and for the people.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

It is good to share those gems we find along the way. This one does not represent any sort of epiphany or great awakening. But it is a reminder of what three Republican Senators might have achieved if not for political maneuvers which made little sense in light of the great risk placed on this nation by foolish legislation.

Who are the three you ask? To be of assistance to readers who may have forgotten (wink, wink) the Senators Three are Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter. They caved to the wishes of the opposition party with the lame excuse of being bipartisan. Considering Collins and Specter are on the Appropriations Committee that seems unlikely. Bipartisanship can generally be defined as requiring more than a small percentage of either party to seek a consensus. This was not unlike the few Democrats who opposed this legislation in the House only for fear of being defeated in their next election due to conservative opinion in their respective districts.

True bipartisan efforts would have seen the majority offer genuine opportunity for the minority party to participate in forging this legislation. The gem below expresses what would happen then. Something that may reflect good governance rather than political options that taint the process and fail to effectively represent constituents or discharge the duties of members of Congress.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Conference Reports: About

From the earliest days, differences on legislation between the House and Senate have been committed to conference committees to work out a settlement. The most usual case is that in which a bill passes one Chamber with amendments unacceptable to the other. In such a case, the Chamber that disagrees to the amendments generally asks for a conference, and the Speaker of the House and the Presiding Officer of the Senate appoint the “managers,” as the conferees are called. Generally, they are selected from the committee or committees having charge of the bill.

After attempting to resolve the points in disagreement, the conference committee issues a report to each Chamber. If the report is accepted by both Chambers, the bill is then enrolled and sent to the President. If the report is rejected by either Chamber, the matter in disagreement comes up for disposition anew as if there had been no conference. Unless all differences between the two Houses are resolved, the bill fails. (From “Our American Government”, H. Doc. 108-94, p. 34)

Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter have a lot in common.

All three are US Senators.

All three are listed as Republicans.

All three voted for the pork-laden spending bill HR1.

All three are ranked pro-abortion by Project Vote Smart.

Ranking by Americans for Tax Reform:
Collins: 45 Snowe: 35 Specter: 65

by National Taxpayers Union:
Collins: C- Snowe: D Specter: D

by Taxpayers for Common Sense:
Collins: 50 Snowe: 30 Specter: 20

Ranking by American Civil Liberites Union:
Collins: 71 Snowe: 86 Specter: 57

Ranking by American Conservative Union:
Collins: 36 Snowe: 28 Specter: 40

by GOPUSA:
Collins: 23 Snowe: 23 Specter: 16

Ranking by the National Education Association:
Collins: A Snowe: A Specter: A

Ranking by Citizens Against Government Waste:
Collins: 34 Snowe: 17 Specter: 29

Ranking by Federation for American Immigration Reform:
Collins: 50 Snowe: 44 Specter: 50

Ranking by Nationa Journal, Composite Liberal Score:
Collins: 52.8 Snowe: 55.5 Specter: 52.5

A few things need to be mentioned about the information listed above. It is based on analysis from groups which may or may not be objective or accurate. Project Vote Smart provides a disclaimer indicating they view interest group ratings as biased. The point here is that other GOP members known to be conservative generally score much better than these three. For instance, the composite liberal scores above are among the highest by Republicans in either the House or the Senate and even outpace some Democrats for being liberal.

Snowe and Specter had a dismal showing on matters of immigration during 2007, the last time a so=called reform, aka, amnesty, aka, shamnesty was presented. Collins may have had a better showing on this issue than the other two.

But nothing separates them from the pack better than the current bailout, stimulus, pork, porkulus insane liberal agenda spending bills in the House and Senate. The only three to vote in favor of HR1 in the Senate.

Certainly there are occasions in politics where the puzzling actions of elected officials can be attributed to backroom deals, falling on the sword for the party or some other strategy or tactic for which the reason is not immediately obvious nor shared publicly. It does not appear this is one of those times.

If there is anything conservative about Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe or Arlen Specter please share that information in the comments section. For it is the view from this blog that over time these three have earned the moniker of RINO.

One additional note should be expressed. The uncertainty of any proposed solutions for the current economic turmoil is understood. What should also be understood is quickly passing massive spending legislation based on fear and loathing does not increase the chances of success. By every report observed lately most Americans do not support the insane spending plans being formed in Washington. Already failures in oversight and other related mistakes support the notion that restraint is needed. If the American voting public allows this insanity to continue we all deserve what we get. Which may in fact be no solutions at a cost no one can afford.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Tell Chuck Schumer you care (Michelle Malkin) 

Link one
Sadly, in their first crucial vote of the 111th Congress, these three moderate Senators showed their true colors; in so doing they not only let down the nation, but also every other Republican in the House AND Senate who unlike them courageously voted against this irresponsible act.

Link two
WASHINGTON (CNN) — An influential conservative political action committee is pledging to support primary challenges to any Republican senator who backs the economic stimulus package — the latest public show of dissatisfaction from the right over the massive measure before Congress.

Three GOP senators voted for the $838 billion compromise version of the package that the Senate approved Tuesday, but all three have said they might not vote for the final version.

“The American people don’t want this trillion-dollar political payoff that will just line the pockets of non-governmental organizations who supported [President Barack] Obama in the election,” said Scott Wheeler, the executive director of The National Republican Trust PAC, an organization that calls for less government spending and lower taxes.

Link three
The actions of the 61 Senators who voted for this bailout plan to funnel money to Democratic constituencies, like unions and blue states, are shameful. But the battle of the bulge has just begun for the Senate and House, who now head into what is known as a conference committee to reconcile the differences between their two versions of the bill. If you thought the measure was bloated before, this stage could balloon the cost as each legislative body fights for its priorities. It should be a good fight. No Republicans supported the House version of the package two weeks ago. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer “is mindful that too much House meddling could torpedo the entire package.” Hear that Congressional Republicans? It there ever was a time to meddle, it’s now.

This roll call vote and whatever happens when both chambers attempt to reconcile the two versions of these PORK bills will determine which members of Congress favor expanded government and government control of the private sector up to and including socialism and those who respect real Americans and their understanding of freedom being supported by individual rights and responsibility not bailouts, handouts and government control over all.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111^th Congress - 1^st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs —61

NAYs —37

Not Voting - 1

Gregg (R-NH)

You can usually count on James Carville to provide a quote that gets passed around. In this case he may be offering advanced excuses for more liberal scandals in the days ahead. Does he know something or does it just make sense to ease the burden of the coming scandals? Carville expects a streak of scandals for the Democratic party. His reasoning offered is not complicated. “With two big Democratic elections in a row, Democrats now hold a larger majority — 340 U.S. representatives, senators and governors. Simple math and history point to the fact that the more elected officials a party has in office, the more likely its politicians will get caught up in some sort of scandal.”

That’s great Mr Carville but you should have gone one step further. Just pick the percentage. If there is a 10% chance that would mean 10 politicians out of 100 or 20 out of 200, etc. That would also follow your logic of more politicians, more chance for scandal. Not a large leap for anyone to come up with this prediction. Gee, the more criminals there are the more crime there will be. That’s a tough concept to understand, NOT. Would it be fair to say it’s the percentages, stupid?

At first it appeared that the distinguished jurist Chief Justice Roberts had abandoned any consideration for decorum when publicly ‘begging’ for a pay raise. After a review of his case (snicker, snicker) it turns out he may have a point. “I must renew the judiciary’s modest petition: Simply provide cost-of-living increases that have been unfairly denied,” Roberts said in his annual year-end report on the federal judiciary.

Alone among federal employees, judges will not receive a cost-of-living allowance in 2009. Members of Congress are getting a 2.8 percent boost, worth $4,700. But they refused before Christmas to give an identical increase to judges.

Federal trial judges are paid $169,300 a year. Appellate judges make more, ranging up to Roberts’ salary of $217,400. The salaries pale in comparison to what top lawyers earn in private practice.

Yup, the Chieft Justice has a point. But part of that being a reminder of how twisted the thinking is in Congress does not help his case. The question of pay for services rendered is not a new topic. A popular set of common arguments hold that either you cannot recruit worthy talent without adequate pay countered with you should seek other employement if income is a higher priority than service. Both arguments have flaws but the point is at 200K plus federal benefits and pensions, etc., there are not that many people who will feel sympathy for Roberts or his colleagues.

Should have known that a story about moderate Republicans being the most popular politicians had nothing to do with their faithful support of conservative principles combined with a statesman-like demeanor and the ability to affect reasoned compromise. Quite the contrary as it would appear their popularity comes from the fact they are targets to be bought off if the Dems cannot overcome the lack of a filibuster-proof Senate requiring a 60 seat majority.

Just like the battles over immigration reform, in this case again, weasel Arlan Specter features prominent in the story. Although he thinks there are so few ‘moderate’ Republicans, sometimes referred to as RINOs, that they could all fit in a phonebooth it is more likely they could easily fill a corporate board room.

“The power of moderates is declining in the country: They are fewer in number and the country has polarized,” said Thomas F. Schaller, a political scientist at the University of Maryland. “But in any vote where you are down to one to two votes there are always going to be people in the middle who have decisive power.”

There in lies the rub. If there were no moderates and it never came down to buying off a vote the measure in question would fail because it should. Instead we get the crap legislation that comes with politicians who won’t stand their ground. The same problem is found with pork, earmarks, lobbyists and amendments. All they do is load someone’s wallet for a vote.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

In the Senate No Amnesty Scorecard post series this is the fourth of six planned posts. The first post describes the best the Senate has to offer. Twenty-three senators including four Dems and an Independent voted consistently against amnesty. The first runners up list features seven Republicans and four Democrats who voted essentially to debate each bill but likely realized debate controlled by Sinister Harry Reid is no debate at all. Their no votes on the subsequent cloture for each bill defeated amnesty on both measures. The 2nd runners up have votes that assisted the defeat of both amnesty measures yet their intentions are still unclear. Now a quick review of the bills and on to the first list of dishonorable mention. While not the worst list, it is the first of three bad lists of Senators no one needs.

There were two bills for amnesty in the Senate this month. The first was S.1348, the famous back room deal between the Bush White House and primarily Senators Kyl, Kennedy, McCain and Reid. President Bush and these Senators as well as many others are in favor of amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. The bill they offered reflected that desire. The desire to abandon the rule of law and increase the risk to the United States with reckless legislation for political gain.

The first list of dishonorable mention features Sinister Harry Reid. You might expect him to be on the worst list but his votes earn him only the first dishonorable mention. He is accompanied by other senators prominent in the amnesty fight and they always end up on the wrong side of the argument. They are in no particular order, Senators Graham, Kyl and Specter. Specter was intent on amnesty last year while a GOP majority was in place. Kyl is credited with getting the first back room deal of this year going. And Senator Graham believes the American people are really stupid the way he continues to claim amnesty is good for us. Bayh and Lugar have been sited in articles and reports as the two Senators from Indiana who are ‘out of touch’. No kidding. With eight Dems out of 19 senators on this list and the actions of the GOP counterparts, it is obvious we’re talking RINOs here. So here’s the list.

(D-IN) Bayh
(R-UT) Bennett
(D-NM) Bingaman
(D-CA) Boxer
(D-OH) Brown
(D-ND) Conrad
(R-ID) Craig
(R-SC) Graham
(R-NH) Gregg
(R-NE) Hagel
(D-IA) Harkin
(R-AZ) Kyl
(R-MS) Lott
(R-IN) Lugar
(R-FL) Martinez
(D-NE) Nelson
(D-NV) Reid
(R-ME) Snowe
(R-PA) Specter

There votes were either in favor of one amnesty bill or the other. They cannot claim they didn’t know this was amnesty. By choosing one amnesty bill or the other they only indicate a preference for one of two bad bills. Maybe they had ‘pet’ amendments connected to one or the other. They likewise cannot claim one bill was not amnesty while the other was for, of course, both bills featured amnesty. About all they can claim is in their dark pursuit for amnesty they were fussy about other details of the flawed bills and were greedy for more perks with amnesty. They should also be ashamed of their amnesty efforts beyond the floor activity on these two bills.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This is easily the fourth or fifth time a post on this blog has urged citizens to continue pressing Congress and the White House to abandon S. 1348 and simply enforce current immigration law. More information has surfaced on why the Senate amnesty bill is bad legislation.

A Kennedy aide said lawmakers are negotiating to pair Republicans amendments with Democratic ones should the bill resurface. The amendment strategy also includes an overall “manager’s amendment” with language proposed by Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., on H-1B visas and employer-based green cards as well as changes to two amendments adopted by the Senate on guestworkers and confidentiality rights for illegal immigrants.

As if it was not bad enough Senators like Dick Durbin claim to be opposed to illegal immigration and immediately submit amendments on visa matters but now Maria Cantwell is pushing the same thing and worse. For those who claim an intention of bringing illegals out of the shadows, hard coding ‘confidentiality’ seems an odd way to do it. This is just another example of all the political deals associated with this legislation. The worst is it offers amnesty and just as bad it will increase visas, quotas and every other way to accommodate the rest of the world and ignore the needs of US citizens.

How can any bill be worthwhile with 350 amendments waiting that are published on the Congressional information website Thomas (click here) The reasonable conclusion to draw is the bill will essentially be rewritten on the fly. So, they cannot pass a flawed bill, they will weigh it down with amendments and to buy votes they’ll pass some of them. No one will take the time to read what they really have and the bill will be dumped on the American public.

This amendment situation is such a mess it is nearly impossible to tell the good guys from the bad or who is trying to do what with the amendments. One can only assume they are meant to sway votes one way or the other or simply cause so much frustration the bill dies. The bottom line is everyone still needs to urge their reps to kill S. 1348. There is no chance it will do anything but deliver amnesty for illegals and do nothing to solve the problem.

One of the most disturbing items aside from the list of amendments being at 350 and counting is a sentence that accompanies many of them. Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. Nothing like being kept in the dark while you’re being kept in the dark.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

We all know that political matters can rarely be taken at face value. The saga developing over S. 1348, a so-called bipartisan compromise bill claimed to be immigration reform, is proving to be the evidence that the White House and Congress are incapable of abandoning special interest or ignoring election politics. This senate bill is more accurately characterized the amnesty bill as those referred to as the ‘architects’ (Kyl, Graham, Kennedy and McCain) all seem to favor amnesty.

This is the first of what may be a series of reviews on this week’s amnesty battle. On Tuesday June 5, there was a vote on an amendment proposed by GOP Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado. If one takes the amendment at face value, it appears to be a fair request to not give preferential treatment to those who enter the US illegally. For the moment, this post will skip over the visa dilemma for now. Except to say there are plenty of flaws with how that item is treated also.

Senator Kyl tried to appear opposed to amnesty when the Senate took up this matter after the 2005 House vote which passed HR 4437. During the debate in the Senate then, Cornyn and Kyl were sending mixed signals. This time Kyl is given credit for spearheading this effort to provide amnesty. And he voted against this amendment. This would be an example of why things cannot be taken at face value. The big question mark on Kyl should be changed to calling him in favor of amnesty. And that would not be a good thing.

Below is the Allard amendment description. After that is the roll call results which tell much of the story.

Allard Amdt. No. 1189; To eliminate the preference given to people who entered the United States illegally over people seeking to enter the country legally in the merit-based evaluation system for visas.

Not Voting - 6

Brownback (R-KS)
Dodd (D-CT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
McCain (R-AZ)
Obama (D-IL)

Four Presidential candidates for 2008 again declined to vote on the issue of illegal immigration. Apparently for them, political considerations are more important than doing their jobs and going on the record. As much as one can find fault with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her support of amnesty, to be fair, at least she voted this time. The no vote list is next.

NAYs —62

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Tester (D-MT)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

The usual suspects voted against the amendment that claims to remove preferential treatment for illegals. The most notorious or significant among the no votes are:
Bayh, Biden, Boxer, Chambliss, Clinton, Cochran, Coleman, Collins, Craig, Domenici, Feinstein, Graham, Hagel, Kennedy, Kerry, Kyl, Leahy, ….. all hell, they are all significant and notorious. These people do not have the best interest of American citizens in their agenda. Not like that is a big surprise but it should be pointed out again.

Now for the yes votes and what it may mean.

YEAs —31

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Coburn (R-OK)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Landrieu (D-LA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)

One item worth mentioning here is the Missouri Senators, Bond and McCaskill, are on the record as opposing amnesty and being strongly in favor of strong border security and control over illegal immigration. Yes, they are in the ‘yes’ column for this amendment. Cornyn is on this list whereas Kyl is on the ‘no’ vote side. What does that tell you? This list is something to consider when trying to separate the good guys from the bad guys. Stay tuned and keep contacting your elected reps on this issue.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Welcome to Blog @ MoreWhat.com’s Open Trackback

Secure the Borders Linkfest

This is an open trackback linkfest. The Secure the Borders theme is held over another day. We have no reason to think it is necessary to provide any disclaimers, warranties, discounts or warnings. If you have any suggestions, criticisms, questions or just feel the need to communicate, trackback or let us know in the comments. Please donate a minute of your time for the QotD, you can answer the question of the day in the comments section.

Stanford Matthews and C. Harris
MoreWhat.com

JIHAD stands for Jesus I Have A Deathwish.
.
.

Question of the Day:Why are people so reluctant to take action on issues?

(you can post your answer in comments)

We suggest using the Linkfest Haven Deluxe Trackback pinger for ease of use and time savings to catch all the festive linking activities today. Or, if you have done this less than we have, the permalink for this Open Trackback is the title link and the trackback is located near the bottom of the permalink page for this post. Just poke around, you’ll find it.

links in the sidebar

The extreme peaceniks and others expressing less venomous opposition to the Iraq war often begin their arguments with reference to inherent characteristics of war as their central theme. Aside from the obvious death and destruction that accompanies armed conflict, they stress the loss of troops and civilians as their largest concern. But they will never accept the fact that this same expression of opposition has prolonged the war in Iraq by strengthening the determination of the enemy. In other words, opposition prolonging the war shares responsibility for the death toll that the anti-war crowd views with such disdain. How’s that for irony?

Each day that politicians seek political cover on the war in Iraq from these same anti-war critics also causes more loss of life. A prudent and practical human being regardless of ideology would sacrifice their own selfish interest in favor of the valiant contributions by those actually at risk of death. To express the realities of politics is simply more rhetoric and of little consolation to those who shoulder the real burden. If you are not now nor have ever been in Iraq, shut the hell up and get this thing done so those who are can satisfy the demands of both sides of the issue by achieving victory in Iraq and coming home that much sooner.

To a much less dramatic issue but with equal potential for serious injury to the United States is illegal immigration. The reason for addressing it at the same time as the Iraq war is the focus afforded these two issues will distract from attending to other matters until resolved. The sympathy argument for illegals is another ploy that compels politicians to seek political cover rather than face the reality that this is simply an economic or financial issue.

The open borders crowd claims that illegals are merely seeking a better life is really describing a better income. The business community’s scare tactics about economic disaster without illegals is really describing lower costs and higher profits by exploiting artificial wage competition. Trying to solve the world’s problems by eliminating border and immigration control only exacerbates the symtoms.

Not securing the borders or controlling immigration is a national security risk we cannot afford. Allowing amnesty for lawbreakers only encourages its continuation. Not enforcing existing laws is a violation of the oath of office of all or most elected and appointed officials in the executive branch. Both sides of the issue, again, can be satisfied by effective control and management of the flow of people in and out of this country. Conceding to the demands of selfish special interest is not an option. Common sense demands this issue be solved now. The guiding force should be the rule of law not the whim of personal preference.

As a personal note, if you truly believe open borders are a good thing, I suggest this. Leave all your locks unlocked 24/7 from now on. Then let us know how long it takes before you experience something really bad. It is nice to think the best of people but that does not suggest ignoring the worst. They invented security because both exist.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Congressional Democrats Negotiate With Bush Aides on Iraq

Congressional Democrats and President Bush’s aides meet again Thursday to negotiate on funding for the Iraq war.

Senators Work With White House to Craft Immigration Deal

Bipartisan group of senators and White House officials work to craft an immigration agreement.

It may sound outragious to the casual observer or typical apathetic or bleeding heart version of American, but the laws against treason should have a section that addresses politicians who sell this country by accepting money from every special interest and who do their bidding regardless of the negative impact on this nation.

A report from Politico has it right and wrong. The report describes the power and influence, meaning political contributions, etc., of the ‘goliath’ supporting amnesty in immmigration legislation. Senate bill 1348 is the culmination of Harry Reid’s push via Kyl, Kennedy and others to circumvent existing legislation that has been rendered useless through the Bush Administration and others before them refusing to enforce immigration and border control.

Amnesty lobby is immigration Goliath

Nearly every major corporation, trade association, union and civil rights group has a dog in this fight — but most of them seek slightly different things. Companies and trade associations mainly seek reforms in the green card and visa process, while most unions want changes in the guest worker program; civil rights groups press for a path to citizenship above all. The challenge, lobbyists say, remains for these groups to band together to thwart anti-immigration groups like the Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA and others trying to fan the flames of grass-roots angst against illegal — and legal — immigration.

The Politico report describes the ‘goliath’ push for easing unenforced immigration laws against what it called the grassroots angst against illegal and legal immigration. That part is wrong. It is not angst. And it is not against legal immigration.

There are seven immigration ‘reform’ bills on the active legislation list at the Senate. This is just a dog and pony show to mask the elimination of immigration and border control as ‘’immigration reform’. The middle class will pay for the crushing burden of opening the immigration flood gates while the politicians and corporate interests line their pockets with the profit from illegal immigration in the form of cheap labor and campaign contributions.

The result will include an increased risk in attack by terrorists that is being sanctioned by political and corporate wrongdoing that explains the ealier suggestion of expanding the laws against treason in this country to include this type of criminal behavior.

But the vast majority of Americans have not the vision to see what is being done to them and have developed such an iron clad shield of apathy they simply nod in agreement and continue to bend over and let it happen again. To which the powerful interests are unable to ignore the opportunity to abuse it again. The few individuals and ‘grassroots’ groups that continue to oppose such travesties are mostly ignored and the cycle repeats itself.

While some of us lobby our representatives and get involved in local, state or national efforts to thwart the open borders crowd and other threats to this nation, the rest of you sit idly by with a front row seat watching the ease with which special interest steals the country from under you.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

As a result of our contacting all 100 members of the United States Senate this weekend, this post on immigration is offered. We expressed our ‘encouragement’ for Congress to do the right thing on immigration. If you cannot guess what items we urged them to properly address and solve, then there would be no point is us telling you now. That is because you would probably not agree or understand the need to protect this country by proper national defense, security, guarding of the borders and immigration control and corrective action. The following is part of our take on the privilege rather than any right to enter the United States.

Why do some people believe that every person who enters this country illegally has this country’s best interests in mind? How stupid is that? It is equally stupid to think that this is not what open borders proponents think. Why? For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the assumed plight of illegal immigrants, those who favor amnesty and other perks for illegals continue to claim they are only looking for a better life. And how did they come to that conclusion?

Did anyone from the open borders crowd interview all the millions of illegals in this country? Even if that had happened, how would one draw a valid conclusion on the intentions of an illegal immigrant? If a person has violated this country’s federal laws to enter this country, how do you know they won’t continue to violate this country’s laws? If a person is here illegally, they have already proven their willingness to violate the law to accomplish their objectives.

The proponents of open and uncontrolled borders continue to describe this country as a nation of immigrants as a central argument for their position. Does that mean those who immigrated here before, legally, and those who were born here from legal immigrants, are required to surrender the protection and welfare of this nation to uncontrolled borders and immigration?

If people are unable to achieve their goals as citizens of another country, does that mean the United States is responsible for solving their problems? If a citizen of another country decides to enter the US because they find their own country unsuitable, how does that show that they will be a valuable asset to this country? If they make no attempt to correct the problems in their native country, how does that translate into a criteria to admit them to this country? There is no guarantee that immigrants will be worthy citizens when they come here legally. How does the open borders crowd determine that those here illegally equal or surpass the integrity of a person worthy of the privilege? They can’t. There in lies the danger.

Slow, methodical, managed and controlled immigration is necessary for protecting and securing this country while honoring the time tested tradition of an immigrant nation. Abandoning those safeguards because some criticize the time required to enter this country legally, is all the evidence you should need to understand the fallacy of the open borders crowd. Protecting this country trumps the interest of anyone wanting to enter this country. Saying immigrants have rights greater than the need to protect this country is more evidence to deny entry. Entering this country is a privilege not a right. To demand entry as a right is the strongest reason to deny entry because the entrant or applicant has put their own interests above that of this country.

The current immigration problem needs to be corrected as well as returning this country to the condition it enjoyed before millions of illegal immigrants were allowed to enter. Then it will be necessary to manage and control immigration, as well as national defense, security and border control to accommodate the safe, fair and responsible flow of persons in and out of the country. The process requires an approach defined by the privilege of coming to the US rather than an imagined right to come here. The protection of this country and its citizens trumps all or the entire discussion is moot as it would precipitate the end of this nation. And end to this nation is NOT something a responsible citizen would recommend.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, third world county, The Random Yak, Right Truth, stikNstein… has no mercy, The World According to Carl, DragonLady’s World, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, The Bullwinkle Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, and Conservative Cat, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

If the previous post does not show you that Senator Harry Reid is a contradction then understand he said they would not cut and run in Iraq or raise taxes. Right at the moment the tax thing is secondary. He said they would not cut and run. Senator Reid would you kindly explain the report below if you are not planning on cut and run?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

US Senate Democrats Draft Plan to Revise Military’s Iraq Mission
By VOA News
23 February 2007

Democratic Party leaders in the U.S. Senate are working on legislation that would effectively revoke the 2002 resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.

Senate Democratic aides say the proposal, which is not expected to be adopted, would limit the U.S. military’s mission to training Iraqi troops and police forces, securing the country’s borders and combating terrorist forces. Regular combat forces would be withdrawn by next year.

The proposal, drafted by Senator Carl Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Joseph Biden, who chairs the Foreign Relations panel is set to be presented to other Democratic senators next week.

If accepted, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would likely attach the proposal to an anti-terrorism bill. If passed by the Senate, which is not likely, the revised authorization would also have to be passed by the House and would be subject to a veto by President Bush.

Democrats and the independents aligned with them hold a slim 51 to 49 majority in the Senate, but hold a more comfortable majority in the House of Representatives.

The 2002 resolution gave President Bush authorization to take military action against Iraq, because of its alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. In a speech last week, Biden said the original resolution is now irrelevant because the WMD program did not exist, and former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is “no longer there.”

The bill is the latest effort by Senate Democrats to challenge President Bush on his Iraq policy. A vote on a non-binding resolution criticizing Mr. Bush’s plan to deploy an additional 21,000 troops to Iraq failed in the Senate, but was passed in the House last week.

Meanwhile, Democrats in the House of Representatives are considering a proposal by lawmaker Jack Murtha that would link funding of the U.S. military mission in Iraq to strict conditions on troop readiness and training standards.

Some information for this report was provided by AP and Reuters.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Right Nation, Leaning Straight Up, Maggie’s Notebook, and basil’s blog, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.