Archive for the ‘Hispanics’ Category
It’s obvious that Ryan Winkler is either the most ignorant, loud-mouthed DFL legislator or he’s totally dishonest. Rep. Winkler tweeted this during Thursday night’s speeches:
First time tuning in to RNC. Romney speech seems fine but it occurs to me GOP wants to go back to Founders: white, male property owners.
I believe Rep. Winkler when he said that Thursday night was his “first night tuning into the RNC” because he doesn’t have a clue about the racial and ethnic diversity within the GOP. Chuck Todd appreciates the GOP’s diversity:
Anyone who watched this convention knows that the GOP is filled with tons of talented newcomers and that there’s tons of diversity within this group of newcomers. Brian Sandoval and Susana Martinez wowed crowds with their speeches. That they’re Hispanic just adds to their appeal with the general public. Add them to Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley, the first governors of Indian descent, and it’s pretty obvious that the GOP is a principled big tent political party.
That’s before talking about soon-to-be US Senator-Elect Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. That’s before talking about rising rock star Mia Love, who should defeat Jim Matheson in Utah’s 4th District.
Had Rep. Winkler paid attention to the delegates in the hall, he would’ve seen a hugely diverse crowd. It’ll be difficult for the Democrats to be more diverse than the GOP’s delegates.
The TEA Party has helped grow, not to mention energize, the conservative movement. They’ve attracted men and women into the movement. Apparently, the TEA Party’s principles of limited, constitutional, government resonates with people of all ethnic, racial and religious backgrounds.
Rep. Winkler hasn’t figured it out that ABM’s charicature of the TEA Party doesn’t match reality. The Left’s charicature of the TEA Party isn’t even close to reality.
When it comes to the national stage, the so-called party of diversity are more like the Neanderthal Party. Their image of the GOP is severely outdated.
Senate Democrats plan on pushing legislation that would invalidate SB1070, the Arizona immigration law. Today starts the SCOTUS oral arguments for the Arizona law. They’d only push this legislation if the SCOTUS validates it as constitutional.
“If the court upholds the Arizona law, Congress can make it clear that what Arizona is doing goes beyond what the federal government and what Congress ever intended,” Schumer said in an interview.
He called the Arizona law an “assault on the domain of the federal government” that Congress will need to address if the court allows it to stand.
What a windbag. If the Supreme Court rules in Arizona’s favor, they will have ruled that Arizona didn’t change or set federal immigration laws. They will have ruled that they acted within the framework of federal immigration laws.
As for SB1070 being toxic to Hispanic voters, that might be true. However, it’s wildly popular with voters who don’t already lean Democrat. Simply put, this isn’t a winning issue for Democrats.
It’s just a situation where they please one demographic group but piss off a different demographic group. Since the group that Democrats would piss off is significantly bigger than the Hispanic group, it’s a net loss for the Democrats.
I’d recommend that vulnerable Senate Republicans vote for the bill so they’re protected against future ads. I’d then tell Republicans occupying strong GOP seats to defeat the bill.
I’d then instruct the House to not bring the bill up for consideration. Once that happens, the bill dies quietly.
Earlier this week, Rush Limbaugh called President Obama a “debt man walking.” Based on the statistics Karl Rove put together, I’d contend that, politically speaking, he’s a dead man walking, too:
As of August 7, the president’s approval number is down 28 points with independents (to 34% rating), 27 points with college graduates (to
42%), 26 points with women (to 43%) and with those who live in the Midwest (to 39%), 25 points with young voters (to 50%) and 23 points with points
with Hispanics (to 51%).
That means President Obama’s support has dropped with each key constituent group from 2008. That’s before factoring in turnout rates, which political experts expect to decline from 2008.
Putting approval rating statistics together with declining turnout rates and you’ve got a recipe for an electoral disaster for President Obama and the Democrats.
If President Obama wants to win back these individuals, he must do more than just talk about jobs and the economy when he goes on his Midwest bus tour next week. He had better start showing real leadership or he risks losing those them for good.
With people already being anxious over high unemployment and stagnant economic growth, people aren’t in a cut-him-some-slack mood. They’re getting more impatient by the day. That’s why I’m not certain he hasn’t lost these voters already.
People who’ve paid any amount of attention know that President Obama isn’t into listening and taking advice from advisors. He’s got too big of an ego for that. They know he won’t change because he hasn’t changed thus far.
If he won’t change after his policies have failed thus far, why should people think that he’ll change now that the 2012 election is getting closer?
Whether people look at these polling statistics, President Obama’s struggles in key battleground states that he breezed through last year, or whether they look at President Obama’s job approval ratings, it still says the same thing, that he’s heading for a humiliating defeat.
November, 2012 can’t get here soon enough.
During a townhall meeting last Friday, Sen. Jon Kyl said that President Obama told him that enforcing Arizona’s border would give Republicans less incentive to work with him on amnesty comprehensive immigration reform. According to this article, the fight between the Obama administration and Sen. Kyl has gone thermonuclear:
The White House denied the claim on Monday.
“The president didn’t say that and Senator Kyl knows it,” White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a written statement. “There are more resources dedicated toward border security today than ever before, but, as the president has made clear, truly securing the border will require a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system.”
But Kyl’s office stood by the senator’s account. Kyl spokesman Ryan Patmintra said, “There were two people in that meeting, and Dan Pfieffer was not one of them.” He said Pfeiffer’s call for comprehensive immigration legislation “only confirms” Kyl’s story.
While Obama has pledged to send an influx of National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, Kyl said in the clip that the president made clear to him that border security is just a political tool in the broader goal of passing an immigration package through Congress.
The facts speak for themselves. Sending 1,200 National guard troops is a photo op deployment. It isn’t a deployment aimed at stopping the drug cartels’ reign of violence in Phoenix. If the Obama administration was serious about stopping the violence, they would’ve sent 10,000 troops and they would’ve gone on the offensives against the drug cartels.
The violence won’t stop until this administration starts making the drug cartels pay a heavy price for their illegal activities.
With this escalation, it’s clear that this administration got stung by Sen. Kyl’s statements. If they weren’t having an effect, they wouldn’t say a word.
UPDATE: I participated in a blogger conference call with Sen. Orrin Hatch Monday afternoon. The call first focused on Sen. Hatch’s two bills to repeal the individual and employer mandates from Obamacare. Nonetheless, I was able to ask Sen. Hatch about the immigration standoff between Sen. Kyl and the Obama administration.
Specifically, I asked if the statistics on continued violence in Phoenix didn’t prove Sen. Kyl’s case. Clearly energized, Sen. Hatch said that the statistics and the continued violence indeed proved that this administration wasn’t doing its duties.
Sen. Hatch then said that the 1,200 people being deployed to our southern border wasn’t even serious, saying that he did’t even think Sen. McCain’s request for 6,000 National Guard troops probably still wasn’t enough.
In my followup, I asked Sen. Hatch if the 1,200 troops weren’t just “photo op troops” designed to take some political pressure off President Obama. Sen. Hatch said that that’s exactly their intent.
Expect this fight to intensify because Sen. Kyl is fighting to protect Arizonans and President Obama has too much to lose in this fight.
SIDENOTE: If there’s a battle between President Obama and Sen. Kyl over who’s more credible, this isn’t a fair fight. Sen. Kyl’s history is filled with honesty and measured statements whereas President Obama’s brief presidential history is filled with important broken promise after another. This isn’t a fight President Obama can win.
This administration’s best bet is to retreat. If this administration picks a fight against Sen. Kyl, they’ll hurt Democrats nationwide. They’ll force Democrats to decide between running away from this administation or suffer humiliating defeats.
That’s a foolish strategic ploy if ever I heard of one.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Rep. Keith Ellison has a habit of branding his opponents as fascists. This past weekend, Rep. Ellison was at it again, this time calling the Arizona law “a fascist, racist law“:
The Minneapolis congressman said Congress urgently needs to pass immigration reform in light of Arizona’s new law giving police more rights to detain people whom they suspect are in the country illegally. Borrowing a word normally reserved for Tea Party protests these days, Ellison called the law “fascist.”
“The fact is that we have to fight against these repressive laws in Arizona,” Ellison said. “They want to say that everybody is a criminal. They will stop anybody. We’ve got to stop these fascist, racist laws [inaudibule].”
I expected this from Rep. Ellison because he’s a reliable mouthpiece for the Democrats’ spin even if what he’s saying is utter nonsense and not based in the truth. First things first: Rep. Ellison should invest in a good dictionary and use it daily. Here’s Dictionary.com’s definition of fascist:
A reactionary or dictatorial person.
That definition exposes Rep. Ellison’s mischaracterization of Arizona’s law. I’m fairly certain that Rep. Ellison’s mischaracterization was intentional because a lawyer who’s read the law would know that Arizona’s law prohibits racial profiling.
Rep. Ellison’s mischaracterization might also be to deflect attention from the real problem, which is that the federal government’s border enforcement efforts have been pathetic at best.
Let’s hear Rep. Ellison explain how passing new laws will eliminate or even marginally reduce the violence currently happening in Arizona. Let’s hear Rep. Ellison explain why the laws currently on the books aren’t sufficient to stop the rampant violence in Arizona.
Most importantly, let’s hear Rep. Ellison explain why Democrats take campaign contributions, and marching orders, from NCLR, an organization committed to open borders policies.
Is Rep. Ellison’s mischaracterization of the Arizona law intentional? Let’s consider what Pinal County, AZ, Sheriff Paul Babeu told Greta van Susteren about the dramatic uptick in violence in Arizona:
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. All right, what happened?
BABEU: Well, he was out there, found some actual backpacks of marijuana and some other suspicious activity. And now, this is a known corridor for smuggling not only of drugs but of illegals. And so he radioed back to dispatch to call for support, and he continued to track the direction because he’s highly skilled in this as a search-and-rescue deputy.
As he was pursuing these five; he didn’t have them in sight yet; they had realized that somebody was tracking them. And so they left the rear guard behind and took cover and concealment as our deputy approached. This last suspect, who was armed with an AK-47, popped up and started shooting at our deputy, who was in uniform. They clearly knew he was an officer of the law.
And our deputy engaged. He had not only his handgun that he emptied the magazine, he also had his AR-15, which is a semi-automatic rifle that we often carry. And he returned fire, and that’s when he was shot. And he believed that he hit one of the five suspects. There was two AK-47s and they had handguns, as well.
If that’s got your attention, it gets worse:
VAN SUSTEREN: Sheriff, was he alone? I mean, because — I mean, he was — was he out there by himself? You don’t mention anybody else.
BABEU: Yes, he was alone at that time, and this is often…
VAN SUSTEREN: Why? I mean, that’s — I mean…
VAN SUSTEREN: I — you know, in the streets of D.C., where it’s a little different than the desert of Arizona…
VAN SUSTEREN: … the officers work in tandem because of the great danger. And I’m surprised to hear an officer would be or a deputy sheriff would be alone.
BABEU: We haven’t seen this type of aggressive posture against law enforcement before in our county, and this is where it’s reached a level that it is truly concerning, not only to be outgunned, the fact that they would ambush a deputy. This hasn’t happened before.
So now I’ve given direction to all of my deputies that if they’re out in remote areas and they’re doing tracking such as this that there’s at least two deputies. And they’re always to be highly armed with their AR-15, as well as their sidearm, and for us to have other deputies in the area.
So this was something that was highly unusual. We’re not a border county. We’re several counties away, and we’re the last county before, which 80 percent of all the illegals who come into Arizona have to cross through our county. So this is what is most concerning in that we in law enforcement now, we have been calling for Senator McCain, Senator Kyl, for their plan to deploy 3,000 soldiers immediately to secure our border with Mexico.
That there are paramilitary units operating within the United States should shock every American’s senses and infuriate them, too.
Rep. Ellison surely knows that we don’t need additional laws on the books to act against paramilitary units operating within the United States. Rep. Ellison surely knows that we’ve got sufficient laws to prosecute paramilitary units operating within the United States who are committing acts of violence.
Then again, Rep. Ellison has a habit of coddling violent criminals, criminals like Kathleen Soliah and others:
In 2000 he spoke at a fundraiser for longtime fugitive Kathleen Soliah, aka Sara Jane Olson. The text of his speech was posted on a website, www.soliah.com, by Minneapolis resident Greg Lang.
Ellison praised Soliah for â€œfighting for freedom.â€ At the time, she faced charges of planting pipe bombs under two Los Angeles police cars as a member of the Symbionese Liberation Army, a paramilitary organization whose slogan was â€œDeath to the fascist insect that preys on the life of the people.â€ Soliah pleaded guilty in 2001. In 2002 she also pleaded guilty to the murder of Myrna Opsahl, a bank customer shot by another SLA member during a holdup. Sheâ€™s now serving a long prison sentence.
But Ellisonâ€™s call to the crowd was broader than a plea to aid Soliah. â€œWe need to come together and freeâ€¦all the Saras,â€ he proclaimed.
It’s common knowledge in Minnesota that Rep. Ellison didn’t hesitate in defending Kathleen Soliah’s murder of Myrna Opsahl and the planting of pipe bombs in L.A. Forgive me if I discount Rep. Ellison’s use of the term fascism. It isn’t the first time he’s intentionally used incendiary language.
The nation is reaching a consensus that goes against the Progressive Democrats’ doctrine: that we must secure the border and eliminate the drug cartel-related violence that’s being perpetrated in Arizona. We don’t need new laws for that, just a president who’s willing to get serious about enforcing existing laws.
Unfortunately, thanks to enablers like Rep. Keith Ellison, we don’t have one of those right now.
Technorati: Crime, Racial Profiling, Violent Crime, Drug Cartels, Kidnappings, Murders, Arizona, Pinal County, Paul Babeu, Sheriff, Law Enforcement, Paramilitary Units, Assault Rifles, Keith Ellison, President Obama, La Raza, Special Interests, Corruption, Democrats
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Singing from President Obama’s hymnal must be a requirement to be part of President Obama’s administration. That’s what DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano is doing in calling Arizona’s emergency immigration law misguided:
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in an exclusive interview she agreed with President Obama’s assessment that Arizona’s recent rigid immigration law is “misguided” and said that the time for immigration reform, including fines and a form of biometric registration for illegal aliens as well as mandatory English, has come.
“This affects everybody, and I actually view it now as a security issue,” Napolitano told ABC News Friday during an exclusive look into a day in the life of the Homeland Security secretary. “We need to know who’s in the country. And we need to know, for those who are in the country illegally, there needs to be a period under which they are given the opportunity to register so we get their biometrics, we get their criminal history and we know who they are. They pay a fine. They learn English. They get right with the law.”
Let’s cut through the BS in Napolitano’s statements. What’s needed is for her to take her job seriously. She said that she NOW considers it to be a national security issue. Why only now, Ms. Napolitano? The border situation was bad during the Bush administration. It’s gotten worse during President Obama’s administration. Murders and kidnappings in Arizona have skyrocketed during President Obama’s administration.
Since there are laws on the books that allow the federal government to arrest and remove illegal immigrants, the first thing that needs to be done is stop the violence ASAP. Talking about comprehensive immigration reform is a political ploy, not a security strategy. It’s time DHS and this administation started reacting to the murders and kidnappings in Arizona.
Let’s ask the Obama administration and Secretary Napolitano one simple question: What’s preventing you from stopping the violence now? I’d submit that there isn’t anything except willpower stopping it. Whether immigration legislation is signed into law or not, DHS has the authority and the responsibility it needs to stop violence immediately.
What’s especially interesting is that Napolitano is calling Arizona’s immigration bill “misguided” at the same time that the WH said that DOJ lawyers were getting their first view of the bill. How did Ms. Napolitano know that Arizona’s immigration bill is misguided without reading it? The same way Democrats ‘knew’ that passing the failed stimulus bill was the right thing to do without reading it?
If President Obama wants to hide behind Secretary Napolitano and another attempted immigration bill, that’s his choice. I’ll just remind people that President Obama and his national security team that they didn’t use the capabilities already in place, that they chose instead to not stop the violence.
Like they’ve done with other issues, specifically health care, the stimulus and cap and trade, President Obama’s administration is ignoring We The People. After the Obama administration is history, the epitaph on their tombstone will read “They ignored the American people too often.”
This talk about needing comprehensive immigration reform isn’t about enforcement. It’s about election-year politicking, aka appeasing the Democrats’ special interest allies.
It’s a sad thing to see an administration play partisan politics while people are dying in Arizona because that administration won’t do what’s right. That’s why this administration needs to be limited to a single term, then replaced with an administration that actually stops the violence and closes the border.
One thing that the TEA Party movement has done is it’s refocused We The People on the basics. Border security is the federal government’s responsibility. If We The People see that they aren’t fulfilling their responsibilities, We The People won’t hesitate to replace them with an administration that will.
Technorati: Reforms, Immigration, Violence, Murders, Kidnappings, Arizona, Phoenix, Janet Napolitano, President Obama, NCLR, Special Interests, Democrats, Borders, Law Enforcement, TEA Parties, Border Patrols, Elections
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Glenn Reynolds posted a link to Scott Wilson’s article about what’s got the Democrats worried. Meanwhile, RealClearPolitics linked to Dan Balz’s article essentially declaring the GOP all but dead and buried. Let’s start with an examination of Balz’s article:
For the past few months, political analysts and demographers have been poring over the results of the 2008 election and comparing them with presidential results from the past two decades. From whatever angle of their approach, age, race, economic status, geography, they have come to a remarkably similar conclusion. Almost all indicators are pressing the Republicans into minority status.
Republicans are still capable of winning individual elections, but until they find a way to reverse, or at least minimize, these broader changes in the country, their chances of returning to majority status will be severely reduced.
Let’s compare that with what Mr. Wilson wrote:
After enjoying months of towering poll numbers, legislative victories and well-received foreign policy initiatives, the White House has become increasingly concerned that President Obama’s spending plans, which would require $9 trillion in government borrowing over the next decade, could become a political liability that defines the 2010 midterm elections.
The concern was reflected in the aggressive response from administration officials to criticism that money from Obama’s stimulus plan is arriving too slowly to help the languishing economy, as well as in the president’s public endorsement of “pay as you go” legislation, which would require Congress to make room for new non-discretionary spending with equivalent cuts to other parts of the budget. Yesterday, Obama also outlined billions of dollars in savings that would be used to pay for his health-care reform proposal.
But there is evidence of growing public concern over his fiscal policies. As he traveled Thursday in Green Bay, Wis., Obama was greeted by demonstrators holding signs that said, “No socialism” and “Taxed Enough Yet?”
I’ve never bought into the ‘demographics is destiny’ argument, especially since it’s been disproved too many times. Issues and events matter, as does quality of candidates. This cycle, Republicans have recruited alot better candidates than have Democrats. Add into this the fact that Democrats have some difficult policies and alot of vulnerable seats to defend and you’ve got a recipe for electoral disaster for Democrats in 2010.
People are getting either scared or angry at the thought of this administration firing CEOs and nationalizing major corporations. They don’t like the Democrats’ out-of-control spending and they don’t like the prospect of staring at a major inflation spike in the near future. Consumers are already getting wary of the interest rate increases. Then factor in the latest Rasmussen polling showing more people trust Republicans on properly handling the economy than Democrats. After factoring all those things in, it’s difficult for thoughtful people to not disagree with Mr. Balz’s premise.
The GOP’s problem isn’t demographics. It’s they stopped behaving like conservatives. They got complacent. They stopped being the party of ideas. Such things matter. ALOT. Mr. Balz looks only at the statistics. He should’ve looked at the causality, too, to figure out the driver for the statistics.
I’m not saying that everything is fixed within the GOP. It isn’t. What I’m saying, though, is that the Democrats’ policies have hurt their standing with independents. I’m also suggesting that the best way for Republicans to do well with Hispanics isn’t through immigration or treating Judge Sotomayor with kid gloves. It’s best achieved by understanding that a huge portion of the Hispanic vote are deeply religious and that that portion of the Hispanic population can be appealed to with socially conservative messages.
It’s time that the GOP examined President Bush’s 2004 campaign because it’s one of the best campaigns I’ve seen in terms of appealing to the broadest spectrum of voters I’ve seen. You can agree with President Bush’s policies while still learning from his campaign. It’s time we started learning those lessons.
If we do, then we’ll refute Mr. Balz’s assumptions.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Dave Mindeman has put together a strawman argument that needs debunking. It’s in response to Rep. Bachmann’s appearance on The O’Reilly Factor. Here’s where the strawman argument starts:
“Should a police officer hold everyone who is stopped without a license to substantiate that they are or are not who they say they are?” asked Rob Yant, public safety director in Marshall, Minn. “You can’t stop someone because they’re Hispanic.”
quote from Star Tribune, Feb. 28, 2008
Mindeman then launches into the false argument:
With all the indignation that comes from the conservatives on this issue, this is the underlying enforcement problem. Do you want police officers to check the immigration status of every person they stop for any kind of violation? Do you want law enforcement to spend a large amount of their valuable time doing the job of the Federal government?
or…do you want the police to racially profile?
Frankly, the answer to all of those questions is NO.
First of all, nobody’s advocating stopping “someone because they’re Hispanic.” That’s just plain nuts. There’s several other disturbing aspects to Mindeman’s thinking on this. The first is highlighted when he asks whether we want law enforcement “doing the job of the Federal government?” He thinks that that answer should be no. I strongly disagree. Since federal agents can’t be everywhere, we need each level of law enforcement working together to control this problem. I’d further suggest that this isn’t just a national security issue, that it’s also a public safety issue, which means that local law enforcement authorities should be involved.
I’d further argue that racial profiling isn’t automatically a bad thing in this instance. It isn’t wrong in this instance because a specific demographic group makes up the vast majority of illegal immigrants. Let’s make this perfectly clear. I’m only advocating that local law enforcement act when they see something unusual. (Like when a Hispanic woman drives onto people’s lawns & doesn’t have a drivers license.)
But, let’s turn to Michele Bachmann…and her appearance on Bill O’Reilly… as, Mr. Gross at “Let Freedom Ring” put it:
At the outset of the interview, Rep. Bachmann said that she had contacted ICE to see â€œwhere in the chain of communicationâ€ things went awry between law enforcement & ICE. She also said that this tragedy â€œwas completely preventable.â€
Rep. Bachmann knows where things “went awry”. It happened where it always happens..at ICE itself. An agency that is understaffed, underfunded, and expected to do way more than it is capable of. Could ICE have intervened and had this woman deported previously? Sure… if they were investigating every single one of the millions of traffic infractions that people get involved in everyday. Do you think ICE officials would scurry on down to Minnesota because some lady jumped a curb and drove over a lawn? Just not possible. It took several days, after the bus accident, just to find her correct name.
Actually, Mr. Mindeman, she doesn’t know that things went awry at ICE. In fact, it’s still up in the air that local law enforcement didn’t tell ICE about the incident. I’d further suggest that it’s one thing to suspect something but it’s another to prove something.
I’d argue that Mr. Mindeman just made my argument against his non-interventionist statements earlier. First he asks this question:
Do you want law enforcement to spend a large amount of their valuable time doing the job of the Federal government?
Then he makes this statement:
Do you think ICE officials would scurry on down to Minnesota because some lady
jumped a curb and drove over a lawn? Just not possible.
That leaves you with two options: have local law enforcement ignore unusual behavior or have them tell ICE about unusual behavior. Choosing to ignore unusual behavior, especially when it’s such dangerous behavior, is the best way to not prevent other tragedies like Cottonwood.
The post turns strange here:
Bachmann could have immediately went before Congress and demanded an appropriate increase in funding for ICE. She could have demanded that enhanced protection for social security identity be implemented. She could have called for stiffer penalties for employers who hire illegals. But she didn’t do any of that…
Actually, at the rate that Congress is getting its work done, demanding that Congress immediately increase funding for ICE would likely get addressed sometime around the election. This Congress doesn’t have a great record on timeliness.
As for demanding “that enhanced protection for social security identity be implemented”, Sen. Coleman is working on legislation to remove these information silo’s, something that Rep. Bachmann supports.
After Nancy Pelosi’s panderfest at the HESTEC, it was inevitable that she’d get ripped for her irresponsible statements there. Brian Bilbray used the opportunity to rip Ms. Pelosi and like-minded Democrats of playing politics with national security:
“In a post-9/11 world, our borders represent a major vulnerability to our homeland security,â€ he said. “We have not only the right, but the responsibility to act now so that we can protect ourselves against all potential threats to our countryâ€¦Speaker Pelosi clearly does not understand the link between border security and homeland security.”
EXACTLY RIGHT. Let’s see if his statements get any national coverage. There aren’t any national articles out yet about it so I wouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t.
Bilbray is right in highlighting the national security aspects of border security because it forces Democrats to give us their solution to the illegal immigration problem. Just spouting the words ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ have lost their punch. The American people don’t buy that anymore. When people first started using the term, it enjoyed a certain level of support. That phrase has lost all impact following the crash of the Senate’s “Grand Bargain”.
In fact, I’d argue that it carries a negative connotation with it now. I think that people are repulsed when they hear that phrase because it’s supported by Ted Kennedy, a known open borders supporter. Simply put, they don’t trust Ted Kennedy having anything to do with illegal immigration.
Pelosi still hasn’t learned that voters are sick of having to pay rapidly increasing taxes to pay for health care and education for illegal immigrants. People simply won’t tolerate that. In their minds, they’ve already paid too much. The old line that “I’re mad as hell and I’m not gonna take this anymore” should become our battle cry. We’re mad as hell that congress is persistent in ignoring our wishes. We’re mad as hell that they aren’t taking their responsibilities of protecting us from terrorists seriously. (Yes, that includes President Bush, too.)
This isn’t about just any policy; it’s about enforcing the law and protecting us from letting the next wave of terrorists slip into the country. This one’s personal. Damn personal in fact. I’ll put up with alot of things but I won’t sit idly by and watch politicians attempt to pass legislation that might get me and my relatives and friends killed.
Thank you, Brian Bilbray, for putting Ms. Pelosi in her place. It’s about time someone highlighted one of the awful policies she’s espousing.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
In another signal that she’s an open borders proponent, Speaker Pelosi criticized the border fence currently being built. She made these comments as part of her pandering to the Hispanic Engineering, Science & Technology Week conference (HESTEC).
“I have been against the fence, I thought it’s a bad idea even when it was just a matter of discussion,” said Pelosi, D-Calif. “These are communities where you have a border going through them, they are not communities where you have a fence splitting them.”
In making these comments, Ms. Pelosi is essentially saying that she’s placing a higher priority on not splitting up communities than on enforcing the law. She’s also essentially saying that ‘not splitting up communities’ is a higher priority than closing down the border so we can stop terrorists before they get here.
Ms. Pelosi’s pandering shows that Democrats put politics ahead of national security. Simply put, Ms. Pelosi’s panderfest is meant to collect votes. Based on these quotes, it’s obvious that she either doesn’t care about setting intelligent national security policy or she’s willing to deceive Hispanics with her rhetoric while practicing another thing.
That isn’t the only subject on which she pandered:
Pelosi also touted legislation known as the DREAM Act that would make it easier for some illegal immigrants to receive higher education benefits. She spoke at a conference that drew more than 5,000 students for activities designed to inspire careers in science and technology.
The DREAM Act would eliminate a federal provision that discourages states from providing illegal immigrants with lower in-state tuition rates. It also would allow permanent residency for illegal immigrants who entered the country as children and have been admitted toan institution of higher education.
“It just isn’t fair,” Pelosi said. “Those young people who came to America one way or another…their opportunities are curtailed because of the situation. And it’s not only harmful to them; it’s harmful to the country.”
We fought against the DREAM Act here in Minnesota. In fact, conservative activists and legislators like Dan Severson got it dropped from the conference report after differing versions had passed the House and Senate. Activists pointed out that Minnesota taxpayers subsidize the lower in-state tuition rates.
Ms. Pelosi wants to talk about what’s fair? Let’s talk fair then. What’s fair about forcing parents, whose burden is stiff enough in sending their own children to college, much less burdening them with additional taxes so illegal immigrants can get the same tuition rates as their children? What’s fair about illegal immigrant children then using that college degree to compete with students who got the lower tuition rates legitimately?
I don’t think that that’s fair at all. I’d bet the ranch that most people across the nation would agree with me.
It’s our job on the Right Blogosphere to expose such duplicitousness. If we don’t expose the folly of Democrats’ policies, then we deserve to get beat next November.
Cross-posted at California Conservative