Bloggin' on down the Rogue...

Keith Butler says...

MICHIGAN POLITICS

US Senate candidate Keith Butler:

In his television ad he says "When I am in the senate, I won't be controlled by anyone! I'll follow my conscience."

[That "anyone" includes you, the voter. We should be used to that with two pro-amnesty Democrat senators who routinely ignore us. Considering that Keith is pro-amnesty (he favors allowing the illegals who are here to get citizenship) that is a big admission and is a good reason to vote for Mike Bouchard, the career law man.]

Keith Butler Watch - 19 days to the primary

Keith Butler is still maintaining his silence about deporting illegals. He makes all sorts of wild gyrations about how he is against amnesty (just like Bush, Frist, McCain, Brownback, Hagel, Martinez, et ilk) but steadfastly refuses to say that the long term illegals who have thumbed their noses at the law for many years must go. In truth, Keith is PRO-AMNESTY because he favors a PATH TO CITIZENSHIP for illegal aliens.

We do not want to replace one pro-amnesty senator ("Dangerously Incompetent" Debbie) with another who can not be honest about his position. Just like liberal Democrats, if he publicly announces his pro-citizenship for illegals, then he would not even have a prayer (other than his own as a Reverend). We need to be weeding out the pro-amnesty "bad apples" in the senate from our side of the aisle, and the Democrats need to reclaim their party from MoveOn/DailyKos/Dean and give the socialists a steel toed boot.

Sorry Keith! As a man of the cloth, your lack of candor is dissapointing and it disqualifies you as our candidate.

You might be good at Detroit politics, but we are not ready to inflict you on the USA.

Bouchard For US Senate!

Senate rejects funding for Mexican Border Fence - Roll Call Vote

Once again senate RINOs drop the ball. The fence that was authorized by the senate for the Mexican border is really just a figament of their imagination. They proved it by rejecting the funding to build it.

===

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 2nd Session

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

Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Sessions Amdt. No. 4659, As Modified )

Vote Number: 200 Vote Date: July 13, 2006, 03:44 PM

Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected

Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 4659 to H.R. 5441 (Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 )

Statement of Purpose: To appropriate an additional $1,829,400,000 to construct double-layered fencing and vehicle barriers along the southwest border and to offset such increase by reducing all other discretionary amounts on a prorata basis.

Vote Counts:

YEAs 29

NAYs 71

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---29
Allen (R-VA) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Burr (R-NC) Carper (D-DE) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID)	DeMint (R-SC) DeWine (R-OH) Dole (R-NC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Grassley (R-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Lott (R-MS)	Nelson (D-NE) Roberts (R-KS) Santorum (R-PA) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Talent (R-MO) Thomas (R-WY) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA)

NAYs ---71
Akaka (D-HI) Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Bond (R-MO) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Chafee (R-RI) Clinton (D-NY) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Cornyn (R-TX) Dayton (D-MN) Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL)	Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Frist (R-TN) Graham (R-SC) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Hutchison (R-TX) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Johnson (D-SD) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ)	McConnell (R-KY) Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murkowski (R-AK) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Obama (D-IL) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stabenow (D-MI) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA) Wyden (D-OR)

[Who could avoid being cyninical about RINOs joining with Democrats to defeat funding for legislation that they have authorized. Nearly all of the usual suspects are in the NAY column. Frist, Graham, Hagel, Lugar, Martinez, McCain, McConnell, Sununu, Voinovich, and more. Looks like DeWine voted against the grain this time. ]

House GOP senses shift in political winds

Just because some of us on the conservative side have decided not to abandon the party and sit out the election, do not think for a second that it frees you to on-the-sly pass an amnesty package (like the Pence "Backdoor Amnesty" Proposal) giving the criminal border jumpers a shot at citizenship. That is a move that could make this the last term in office for any who think the voting public will forgive and forget. We have spoken loudly as voting citizens in the recent past and we are watching. The RINOs in the senate are doing the truffle shuffle trying to make us forget their S.2611 treachery by dragging out all sorts of near and dear conservative issues. No RINO in the senate should think that we will suddenly forget S.2611 and nominate them for the presidency in 2008. I support the "Isakson Principle". Certified border security FIRST! Then we will discuss a "guest worker" with no citizenship attachment.

No Amnesty - GOT IT? (If not, Google it!)

Primaries are coming soon, and we WILL remember in November. Any betrayal after the election, and retribution at the ballot box will be the result in 2008.

[This was sent to The Hill editors via Congress.org]

The lapdog MSM has tried its damnedest to ignore the illegal alien issue or to minimize its importance. It has been our job to keep it front and center.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS A NATIONAL "GRASS ROOTS" ISSUE LA RAZA, THE MSM, AND OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS HAVE TRIED TO HIDE THIS!

How Ike handled illegal aliens in the 1950s, "Operation Wetback"

From Christian Science Monitor

[excerpted, go to the link above for the full article ]

How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico

By John Dillin

WASHINGTON – George W. Bush isn't the first Republican president to face a full-blown immigration crisis on the US-Mexican border.

[But unlike Ike, George Bush is refusing to enforce the law, thus violating his oath of office. Instead he is holding out for amnesty for the millions of criminal border jumpers in residence, plus the hoard streaming across the border in anticipation of his largesse. George does not have the will or the spine to enforce the law. He is too busy leading the belly-crawling pander brigade as they crawl up to the illegal aliens to lick the bottoms of their boots.]

Fifty-three years ago, when newly elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America's southern frontier was as porous as a spaghetti sieve. As many as 3 million illegal migrants had walked and waded northward over a period of several years for jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and points beyond.

President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents - less than one-tenth of today's force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol.

Senator Fulbright had just proposed that a special commission be created by Congress to examine unethical conduct by government officials who accepted gifts and favors in exchange for special treatment of private individuals.

General Eisenhower, who was gearing up for his run for the presidency, said "Amen" to Senator Fulbright's proposal. He then quoted a report in The New York Times, highlighting one paragraph that said: "The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican 'wetbacks' to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government."

[note: This is absolutely rampant now, and it is why we see such political resistance to deporting illegals. This is why our El Presidente says it is impractical to deport all the illegals. Many businesses have become absolutely dependent on cheap illegal labor and would fold if they had to pay a living (or even a minimum) wage. The pandering pro-amnesty crowd has gotten much smarter too... they get their people into positions of leadership in the Senate and on the important committees. The next fight will be to oust them from these positions.]

According to the Handbook of Texas Online, published by the University of Texas at Austin and the Texas State Historical Association, this illegal workforce had a severe impact on the wages of ordinary working Americans. The Handbook Online reports that a study by the President's Commission on Migratory Labor in Texas in 1950 found that cotton growers in the Rio Grande Valley, where most illegal aliens in Texas worked, paid wages that were "approximately half" the farm wages paid elsewhere in the state.

Profits from illegal labor led to the kind of corruption that apparently worried Eisenhower. Joseph White, a retired 21-year veteran of the Border Patrol, says that in the early 1950s, some senior US officials overseeing immigration enforcement "had friends among the ranchers," and agents "did not dare" arrest their illegal workers.

[This is the case today. Many are convinced that it is totally moral to hire an illegal alien at slave labor wages to make a profit and drive down the wage base of American citizens. Very heavy political pressure is brought to bear when the border patrol rounds up illegals. Our El Presidente is a prime mover for porous (or even non-existant) borders and cheap Mexican slave labor. This is why I say to question your local politicians about moral beliefs concerning illegal aliens and their deportation.]

In 1954, Ike appointed retired Gen. Joseph "Jumpin' Joe" Swing, a former West Point classmate and veteran of the 101st Airborne, as the new INS commissioner.

Influential politicians, including Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D) of Texas and Sen. Pat McCarran (D) of Nevada, favored open borders, and were dead set against strong border enforcement, Brownell said. But General Swing's close connections to the president shielded him - and the Border Patrol - from meddling by powerful political and corporate interests.

One of Swing's first decisive acts was to transfer certain entrenched immigration officials out of the border area to other regions of the country where their political connections with people such as Senator Johnson would have no effect.

Then on June 17, 1954, what was called "Operation Wetback" began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country.

Unlike today, Mexicans caught in the roundup were not simply released at the border, where they could easily reenter the US. To discourage their return, Swing arranged for buses and trains to take many aliens deep within Mexico before being set free.

Tens of thousands more were put aboard two hired ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried the aliens from Port Isabel, Texas, to Vera Cruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles south.

The sea voyage was "a rough trip, and they did not like it," says Don Coppock, who worked his way up from Border Patrolman in 1941 to eventually head the Border Patrol from 1960 to 1973.

[We could do the modern day equivalent with some of our military transport aircraft (C5A Galaxy, C130, etc) and WWII surplus parachutes. After a few static line drops of illegal aliens deep in the interior of Mexico, remote from any cities, I wonder how many would stay here to be rounded up for the next drop.]

[Now Bush has stacked the management of the Border Patrol with his own hand picked staff from the Secret Service. There is currently no promotion from within to management ranks of the Border patrol. Bush has DIRECT control of how the immigration laws will be enforced. That is why these recent showcase roundups of a few illegals are a media sham. Bush has no intention of enforcing immigration law or he would have done so long before now.]

1. End the current practice of taking captured Mexican aliens to the border and releasing them. Instead, deport them deep into Mexico, where return to the US would be more costly.

2. Crack down hard on employers who hire illegals. Without jobs, the aliens won't come.

3. End "catch and release" for non-Mexican aliens. It is common for illegal migrants not from Mexico to be set free after their arrest if they promise to appear later before a judge. Few show up.

Check out this political ad!

We need more of this type of representative! Vern Robinson from North Carolina...

http://vernonrobinson.com/twilightzone3.shtml

Keith Butler is still PRO-AMNESTY

Amnesty 101 (continuing education)

A carefull check of his campaign web site shows that Keith Butler is still very carefully and studiously avoiding any mention that he is in favor of a path to citizenship for the 10-20 million illegal alien criminals that infest the USA. He tries to use strong language to say that he is very much against amnesty, just ths same way that McCain, Frist, Martinez, and even Bush have done. In a previous face to face contact with Scott Greenlee, Keith's roving talking-head, I found out that Keith supports a path to citizenship for these criminals. He favors letting them stay and earn citizenship. [hint: AMNESTY] Since that time, nothing has changed. I have been singularly unsuccessfull at getting any word about DEPORTATION directly from Keith.

Keith Butler is PRO-AMNESTY

A vote for Keith Butler is a vote for citizenship for illegal aliens!

[So far, Keith has appeared at some BIG BUX fund raisers but is shy about showing up in person at the Kent County GOP monthly meetings. I think he is waiting until after the primary election to avoid any questioning face to face about his pro-amnesty position of earned citizenship for alien criminals.]

Keith Butler Watch...

Over the past month or so, I have been tracking the evolution of Keith Butler and his shifting position on illegal aliens since I talked to his spokeman, Greenlee.

I must say that he has really hardened up his position. In my latest message on his web contact form, I ask what he would do with the illegals who are here ahead of those immigrants that want to do it legally.

[ ] Path to citizenship (aka AMNESTY)

[ ] Deportation

I am awaiting a reply from him or a spokesman.

Pennsylvania Lawmakers Propose Anti-Illegal Immigration Bills

Source Permalink:

http://morningcoffee.wordpress.com/2006/06/21/pennsylvania-lawmakers-addressing-illegal-immigration-at-the-state-level/

Source Trackback:

http://morningcoffee.wordpress.com/2006/06/21/pennsylvania-lawmakers-addressing-illegal-immigration-at-the-state-level/trackback/

The Daily Item

June 21, 2006

HARRISBURG — Pennsylvania should toughen its employment and welfare laws so illegal aliens have less incentive to come here, a coalition of state lawmakers said Tuesday.

The lawmakers, including Rep. Robert Belfanti, D-107 of Mount Carmel, want state officials to verify the status of immigrants before providing them with benefits and prosecute employers who hire illegal workers. Under one bill, an employer would be fined $1,000 for knowingly hiring an illegal alien.

Their call for action marks the emergence of illegal immigration as a major issue in Harrisburg. Statewide hearings will be held this summer on the immigration bills.

The lawmakers said state action is needed to curb illegal immigration because the federal government, particularly Immigration and Customs Enforcement, isn't doing the job.

The coalition is loose-knit, and lawmakers are stressing different approaches as a way to curb illegal immigration.

Mr. Belfanti proposes bills to expand the power of state and county prosecutors to arrest and detain illegal workers, requiring state licensing of building contractors and requiring employers to prove their employees are U.S. citizens.

Specifically, Mr. Belfanti would give the state attorney general and county district attorneys power to arrest and detain illegal workers up to 30 days.

If this proposal was already state law, said Mr. Belfanti, Northumberland County District Attorney Anthony Rosini could have detained illegal workers discovered on the job last week during a raid of a shopping center construction site on Route 61 in Coal Township.

"Contractors who hire these illegals know all the tricks, and our inability to arrest and detain illegal workers at construction sites means these hit-and-run contractors are too often already long gone by the time the federal government arrives," Mr. Belfanti added.

Another lawmaker, Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Butler, has a bill to prohibit state agencies from providing benefits — ranging from food stamps to public school enrollment — to illegal aliens.

"If we turn off the spigot of public benefits and jobs "¦ they will go home on their own," said Mr. Metcalfe.

Rep. Tom Creighton, R-Lancaster, has bills to give the state police authority to enforce federal immigration laws and require county and municipal prison wardens to determine the nationality and immigration status of any individual charged with a felony or drunken driving.

The proposals won an endorsement from Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta, who is gaining national attention on this issue. Mr. Barletta is pushing a city ordinance to revoke the business licenses of companies that hire illegal workers, fine landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and make English the official language of the city.

[Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could get that degree of concern for the citizens of Michigan from our elected officials here in Michigan? Part of our problems come from the weird coalition of business owners who want cheap illegal labor and unions that support pandering Democrats. The unions see what cheap labor is doing to their members. The union leaders are also yellow dog Democrats, so regardless of the cost to union members they will support the pandering Democrats when they vote for legalizing alien criminal cheap labor. Union Motto: "Party FIRST, LAST, and ALWAYS! The workers will agree if they are smart!" Another part of our problems come from having a lot of middle of the road moderate Republicans who are beholden to cheap labor Chamber of Commerce members. They think "Business is good when labor can be obtained on-the-cheap!" The business owners have turned to using cheap labor from temp agencies that use illegal aliens. If you want to see what I am talking about, go park in front of a temp agency and watch who goes through the door, especially on payday! The temp agencies act as HR/Payroll Department for the employers, so the employers never have to ask for a Social Security number. I wonder if the temp agencies have a floating list of stolen social security numbers that they rotate for their illegal hires?]

The NAFTA Super-Highway and the North American Union

Source: Human Events Online

Bush Administration Quietly Plans NAFTA Super Highway

by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted Jun 12, 2006

Quietly but systematically, the Bush Administration is advancing the plan to build a huge NAFTA Super Highway, four football-fields-wide, through the heart of the U.S. along Interstate 35, from the Mexican border at Laredo, Tex., to the Canadian border north of Duluth, Minn.

 

Once complete, the new road will allow containers from the Far East to enter the United States through the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas, bypassing the Longshoreman's Union in the process. The Mexican trucks, without the involvement of the Teamsters Union, will drive on what will be the nation's most modern highway straight into the heart of America. The Mexican trucks will cross border in FAST lanes, checked only electronically by the new "SENTRI" system. The first customs stop will be a Mexican customs office in Kansas City, their new Smart Port complex, a facility being built for Mexico at a cost of $3 million to the U.S. taxpayers in Kansas City.
>
> As incredible as this plan may seem to some readers, the first Trans-Texas Corridor segment of the NAFTA Super Highway is ready to begin construction next year. Various U.S. government agencies, dozens of state agencies, and scores of private NGOs (non-governmental organizations) have been working behind the scenes to create the NAFTA Super Highway, despite the lack of comment on the plan by President Bush. The American public is largely asleep to this key piece of the coming "North American Union" that government planners in the new trilateral region of United States, Canada and Mexico are about to drive into reality.
>
> Just examine the following websites to get a feel for the magnitude of NAFTA Super Highway planning that has been going on without any new congressional legislation directly authorizing the construction of the planned international corridor through the center of the country.

• NASCO, the North America SuperCorridor Coalition Inc., is a "non-profit organization dedicated to developing the world" first international, integrated and secure, multi-modal transportation system along the International Mid-Continent Trade and Transportation Corridor to improve both the trade competitiveness and quality of life in North America.&rdquo Where does that sentence say anything about the USA? Still, NASCO has received $2.5 million in earmarks from the U.S. Department of Transportation to plan the NAFTA Super Highway as a 10-lane limited-access road (five lanes in each direction) plus passenger and freight rail lines running alongside pipelines laid for oil and natural gas. One glance at the map of the NAFTA Super Highway on the front page of the NASCO website will make clear that the design is to connect Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. into one transportation system.
  >
  >
• Kansas City SmartPort Inc. is an "investor based organization supported by the public and private sector&rdquo to create the key hub on the NAFTA Super Highway. At the Kansas City SmartPort, the containers from the Far East can be transferred to trucks going east and west, dramatically reducing the ground transportation time dropping the containers off in Los Angeles or Long Beach involves for most of the country. A brochure on the SmartPort website describes the plan in glowing terms: "For those who live in Kansas City, the idea of receiving containers nonstop from the Far East by way of Mexico may sound unlikely, but later this month that seemingly far-fetched notion will become a reality."
  >
  >
• The U.S. government has housed within the Department of Commerce (DOC) an "SPP office" that is dedicated to organizing the many working groups laboring within the executive branches of the U.S., Mexico and Canada to create the regulatory reality for the Security and Prosperity Partnership. The SPP agreement was signed by Bush, President Vicente Fox, and then-Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Tex., on March 23, 2005. According to the DOC website, a U.S.-Mexico Joint Working Committee on Transportation Planning has finalized a plan such that "(m)ethods for detecting bottlenecks on the U.S.-Mexico border will be developed and low cost/high impact projects identified in bottleneck studies will be constructed or implemented." The report notes that new SENTRI travel lanes on the Mexican border will be constructed this year. The border at Laredo should be reduced to an electronic speed bump for the Mexican trucks containing goods from the Far East to enter the U.S. on their way to the Kansas City SmartPort.
  >
  >
• The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is overseeing the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) as the first leg of the NAFTA Super Highway. A 4,000-page environmental impact statement has already been completed and public hearings are scheduled for five weeks, beginning next month, in July 2006. The billions involved will be provided by a foreign company, Cintra Concessions de Infraestructuras de Transporte, S.A. of Spain. As a consequence, the TTC will be privately operated, leased to the Cintra consortium to be operated as a toll-road.

The details of the NAFTA Super Highway are hidden in plan view. Still, Bush has not given speeches to bring the NAFTA Super Highway plans to the full attention of the American public. Missing in the move toward creating a North American Union is the robust public debate that preceded the decision to form the European Union. All this may be for calculated political reasons on the part of the Bush Administration.
>
> A good reason Bush does not want to secure the border with Mexico may be that the administration is trying to create express lanes for Mexican trucks to bring containers with cheap Far East goods into the heart of the U.S., all without the involvement of any U.S. union workers on the docks or in the trucks.

>

Mr. Corsi is the author of several books, including "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" (along with John O'Neill), "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil" (along with Craig R. Smith), and "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians." He is a frequent guest on the G. Gordon Liddy radio show. He will soon co-author a new book with Jim Gilchrist on the Minuteman Project.

No Amnesty Immigration Reform

Source Permalink:
http://morningcoffee.wordpress.com/2006/06/12/a-middle-ground-on-immigration/

Source Trackback:
http://morningcoffee.wordpress.com/2006/06/12/a-middle-ground-on-immigration/trackback/

Mike Pence a Republican Congressman from Indiana published an article in the Wall Street Journal which deserves a read. His proposals aimed at bridgeing the gap between the Senate and House bills on Immigration on the surface appear to be logical and based on common sense.

Here is the Executive Summary to his proposal.

The Four-Step Solution: No Amnesty Immigration Reform

I see the solution as a four-step process:

• 1. Secure our border.

• 2. Make the decision, once and for all, to deny amnesty to people whose first act in the United States was a violation of the law.

• 3. Put in place a guest worker program, without amnesty, that will efficiently provide American employers with willing guest workers who come to America legally.

• 4. Enforce tough employer sanctions that ensure a full partnership between American business and the American government in the enforcement of our laws on immigration and guest workers.

Permalink:
http://www.rogueriver.tzo.com/NoAmnestyarchives/2006/06/entry_83.html

RNC Chairman Mehlman on Immigration and Border Security

Mehlman Cites Border Security as Key Issue to Human Events Online

Posted Jun 05, 2006

In an exclusive interview with the editors of HUMAN EVENTS, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman argued that border security would be a key issue for Republicans seeking re-election to Congress.

“I think it is very important that we move on border security,” Mehlman said in the May 24 interview. At the same time, he argued that Republicans have already done a great deal on the issue and that President Bush’s recent immigration reform proposals are a substantial move toward increased border security.

“I think we’ve done a lot on it,” said Mehlman. “I think we need to explain what we’ve done on it. … I think that what the President announced, in terms of the $1.9 billion in increased funding, in terms of what he asked Congress for, is a good step and an important step in the right direction.”

Mehlman said he believes Republicans face a very tough midterm election in November, but predicted they will maintain their majorities in both houses. Below are excerpts from the conversation.

You have a lot of pundits out there predicting that the Republicans are heading into a tough election, might even lose Congress. Why do you think they’re wrong?

Well, I think they’re right. It’s a very tough election. I don’t think we’re going to lose Congress, and I think we’re going to maintain a majority in both houses because of a number of different factors.

First of all, I think we’re going to maintain control because most members I talk to, in their races, are going to run elections as choices and not referendums.

The right-track number is not a good number today. The right-track number in 2004 was 43%, and yet the President got re-elected in what is usually a total referendum. The reason he got re-elected was because people decided that while they were concerned about some things, they recognized the leadership of this President is better than leadership of John Kerry. So I think that all over the country, candidates are going to be able to ask, “Do you want to see $2.4 trillion in higher taxes? Do you want to see a Congress that raises the white flag in the War on Terror? Do you want to see government bureaucrats between doctors and patients on health care? Do you want to see a litmus test that prohibits constitutionalists from being appointed to the courts?”

All those are things Democrats would do if they were in power. Are these Republicans going to go out and say, “Here’s what we did, and what we’re going to do in the next few years?”

That’s the other side of it. It’s a choice. A choice doesn’t mean it’s a negative referendum. A choice means we say, here’s what we’ve done and we will do, and here’s what they’ve done.

What have we done? Every year that George W. Bush has been President, that we’ve had a Republican majority in Congress, Americans have received a tax cut. Every single year—including this year now the $70 billion law of the land.

… I also would argue: Tax cuts every single year. Moral clarity—and not just moral clarity, but the sense of purpose that we need in the war on terror from this President. A judicial record that our friend Pat Buchanan says is better than Ronald Reagan’s, which is true, I think. A fantastic record in terms of who was appointed. An outstanding record of protecting innocent human life, from the first thing the President did which is the Mexico City Policy, to the ban on partial-birth abortion to the ban on interstate moving around of young girls to have abortions, to parental notification, to the positions we’ve taken in the courts on this issues.

Do you think the abortion issue, the pro-life issue, is good for Republicans?

Absolutely. I think that anyone who has ever measured this objectively—I’m personally pro-life, but taking off my pro-life hat and speaking as a political professional—if you look at the volatile voters, which is to say people for whom this issue moves them from one side to the other—this was a test that was done in ’02 in the Missouri race for Senate and in the Minnesota race for Senate. It’s clear to me that the pro-life position is the one, is a position that politically has benefited the Republican Party. Which is not to say we should not be a big-tent party. We are a big-tent party. We’re a party that has people of all positions. It’s a position that candidates ought to choose on the basis of their principles. But you asked me a political question. I believe that answer, politically, is one that’s benefited us. That’s not why we’re doing it, we’re doing it because it’s morally right.

So the people like Christine Todd Whitman who say Republicans have to get away from that are just dead wrong?

I think that the fact is that she’s wrong as a political matter. Those people who say we should abandon our pro-life platform, I believe, are wrong from a political perspective, and I think are wrong from the perspective of what’s right for this party.

What exactly is the role of the RNC between now and November?

There are basically four things we can do that can be helpful to candidates around the country. First, we can provide them with financial support. Second, we can help them develop a smart and effective voter turnout and communication machine. In the old days people thought the way you communicate was through TV, the way you turnout the voters is through, mostly, TV but some word-of-mouth, some talk radio, some grassroots and phone banks. Today, the way you spread the word is through word-of-mouth. So setting up that kind of infrastructure, embracing the new-media and new technology, is important for them to get their message out. We can do that.

The third thing we can do is build the parties in their states to turn out more conservatives and more Republicans, and that can be helpful to them.

And the fourth thing we can do, that I try to do, is work with them and advise them on issues and on ideas that we think and I think and they think will be effective in turning out the vote, both the members of Congress here and in their individual campaigns.

How do things look in the House races?

… The House is going to be very challenging. This is going to be a tough, tough cycle, and I’ve told everyone this. I think there has been very important progress made. I think it is critical that they passed a budget in the House. They had to do that, and it was the right thing to do.

I think it is very important that we move on border security. That is something that is very important for us to do. I think we’ve got to remind people of the differences, both by the good things that we do and remind us who those guys are and what they’re going do. That’s very important.

Here are the advantages you have in the House. I think there are really four advantages. One advantage is just the narrow playing field. Compare for instance where we are today compared to where the Democrats were in 1994. We have today 18 open seats, they had 28. Going into that election in 1994, they had 42 Democrat members who the last time had won by 5% or less. Those were people in vulnerable districts. We have four.

They had in that election, 53 Democrats that represented districts that 41 [President George H.W. Bush] had won in ’92. We have 18, and there are 41 that cut the other way. So the playing filed is much more narrow.

Second, financially: Since 1972, if you look at every election in a competitive race, and you see who’s won and who’s lost, on average the candidate with $200,000 or more cash on hand has won 93% of the time. If you take every one of those races [where our candidate or their candidate won less than 60% of the vote] our guys are up $220,000 on average.

So the first reason is a narrow playing field, the second reason is resources, and the third reason is the Democrats are in no better shape than we are, defying the laws of political physics. For the first time in a generation when one party went down [in the polls] the other party did not go up.

The fourth advantage we have is that people understand we’re in trouble in a way they didn’t in 1994. They understand we have a problem, which hopefully clarifies the mind. It makes you run better races. It makes people take action on things that our voters care about. It makes people focus and take the necessary steps to be in a strong position.

There seems to be such great anger about the direction the Senate is heading on immigration and the fact the President hasn’t secured the border, that that one issue can cause voters to go against Republicans.

Well, I will tell you, I think it is very important we secure the border. I think we’ve done a lot on it. I think we need to explain what we’ve done on it. I think that you’re going to see, over the coming weeks, us do that. I think that what the President announced, in terms of the $1.9 billion in increased funding, in terms of what he asked Congress for, is a good step and an important step in the right direction.

Let me just go over some statistics: $1.9 billion is requested for the border and Congress, I’m confident, will pass it. If you add up that plus previous funding, this government will be spending, essentially, $4 million a mile to secure the border in this country. We’ve had a 66% increase in funding for border security since the President took office. There will be 18,000 Border Patrol by 2008. That’s double the number from where it was originally. And obviously we’ve got the National Guard in there until that happens, and that’s gonna be critically important. Ending catch-and-release, that is critically important, very important to success at the border. Build a virtual wall, which this President is committed to doing, and the fact that there have been 5.9 million apprehensions.

Here’s how I look at it, and I look at, again, as someone who’s paid attention to this issue for a while. (I worked for Rep. Lamar Smith [R.-Tex.] in 1996, you may remember, when he was working on this issue.) In 1986, we did, in my judgment, the wrong thing, because we violated two fundamentally conservative principles. The first principle was the rule of law. By providing amnesty we violated the rule of law, and we also ignored the law of supply and demand.

By not recognizing that there was reason we had illegals in this country, which was the fact that we had jobs that weren’t being met, not having real employer sanctions that would go forward and giving people amnesty, we essentially said: “OK, we’re not going to change the supply and demand of the job market, we’re not going to really enforce the rules and we’re not going to have a penalty for people who violate the law.”

What I think we’ve got to do this year—and I hope we can get something that does it—if you combine a real work ID that you can’t get into the job without, with real employer sanctions, with real border security (that I just went over), with a temporary-worker program that allows you to meet your economic needs (and it could be one of a number of different ways to that program), if you add that stuff together, you’re actually doing, from an incentive perspective, the opposite of what we did in 1986. And you’re making it consistent with things that we all understand, which is the rule of law, and which is the law of supply and demand.

There are two important concepts you put out there: The Republicans have to show the people that they’ve secured the border. No. 2, they have to show that they’re enforcing the rule of law, which means no amnesty. You cite all these figures and proposals, some of which come from the President’s speech last Monday. But isn’t the problem that people believe the President hasn’t secured the border? They believe the proposals he’s made are not going to secure the border. And the problem you’re going to have, politically, is come election Tuesday in November, illegal aliens are still going to be streaming across the border and the night before the election Lou Dobbs is going to be on CNN, probably with a live camera on the border, showing illegal aliens streaming across.

Well, I don’t think that they will be. I think—

You think the border will be secured on Election Day?

I think that there have been important steps. The 5.9 million apprehensions that have occurred over the last couple of years by this administration, I think represents progress. I think you’re going to have more progress.

How much of a problem will it be for Republicans if on Election Day, in fact, illegal aliens are streaming across the border and you have Lou Dobbs down there interviewing them as they come across?

I think the public understands. I mean, the polling consistently shows that the public understands this is a difficult and complicated issue. The public wants to see progress. They want to see us protect our nation. They recognize we are a nation at war. I think we need to show progress. And I’m hopeful and confident that they can.

So we shouldn’t expect to see the border actually secured by Election Day?

I’m not, as the chairman of the party, going to sign a check that [Homeland Security Secretary, Michael] Chertoff and others need to cash.

But President Bush as commander in chiefcould secure the border, correct?

Well, as commander in chief, I think he has announced very important things that will make sure we are controlling our border and that we are—the problem with what you’re saying to me is I don’t know the definition you have. I believe the President has taken important steps and our border is more under control today than it was when he took office. And I believe he will take even further steps to get more under control.

I believe the border could be secured almost tomorrow, if you put 30,000 or 40,000 National Guard down there. What’s the explanation about training the new border guards, why does it take two more years?

There’s going to be the National Guard at the border until they’re trained.

But they’re not even going to be able to capture people.

My opinion is we will have a border that is secure and controlled in the coming weeks and months. And I think it’s already more secured and controlled than it was. This President has made important progress, and he’ll make further progress.

So if people are streaming across the border on Election Day, will that be a disaster for the Republican Party?

I know what you’re trying to get me to say.

But this is what you hear people say. All you have to do is turn on Chris Core [on WMAL radio in Washington, D.C.] in the morning—

Listen, I live in the grassroots. So I understand the concern, and what I’m saying is that we’ve shown progress. We’ve made progress. Much more needs to be done. Much more is being done. When the $1.9 billion is passed, that’s important progress. When the National Guard troops are sent, that’s important progress. And these people are trained, that’s important progress. You will see significant progress. Our country will be more secure before this election than it is today. And it’s more secure today than it was a year ago, and more than a year before that.

This really gets to another part of the equation where it seems like the President’s credibility on the immigration issue is potentially going to do profound damage to Republican Party. It’s the whole question of the rule of law and amnesty. Most people, quite frankly, don’t believe that what the President is proposing and the Senate is about to pass is not an amnesty. On the face of it it’s an amnesty. Ed Meese said in the New York Times it is amnesty. So, people don’t believe it.

I’m a fan of Ed Meese. I think he’s a great man. I think he served our country well. I just happen to disagree with him about that specific definition.

In 1986, the way it worked was there was no penalty, you automatically became a citizen. We don’t know where this is going to come down. There are a number of different proposals in the Senate. [Rep.] Mike Pence [R.-Ind.] has a proposal. The fact is, though, no one on our side is proposing what President Reagan did in 1986, which is to say you automatically become a citizen. What the penalty ought to be includes in most cases learning English; includes in most cases a fine; includes in some cases going back to the port of entry; includes in other cases waiting in the back of the line. It includes in other cases a criminal background check.

There are a number of different proposed penalties, but I don’t see how, as simply a matter of factual argument, you can say that’s the same thing as 1986 when there was no penalty.

If Senators Chuck Hagel’s (R.-Neb.) and Mel Martinez’s (R.-Fla.) bill, which is the one before the Senate, wins tomorrow in the Senate (which we expect) [and it did] and then it’s eventually signed into law by the President, do you believe that Republican candidates in vulnerable districts should go out in November and say: “I voted for Hagel-Martinez, vote for me”?

I think that if that became law, members should go out and say that I voted for massively increased border security. I voted for a biometric work card that is critical to protecting our nation. I voted to make sure that we meet our economic needs in the future. And I voted for a way for us to figure out who the people are that are here so that if there are criminals or drug dealers or terrorists we can deal with them appropriately.

[The interviewer did the most skillfull job I have seen on a Pro-Amnesty apologist. The truth is that Ken Mehlman is a wholehearted amnesty proponent who will cheer it on and be unashamed of his position, even as it takes the RNC down the tubes. There is no reasoning or debate that will change their minds. They have what they believe is a fair market price set on citizenship and they are determined that if they can get 100 million more people to crawl across the border times $2000, why we will solve all out budget problems... putting troops on the border will only mess up the plans. It will make the illegals spend the money elsewhere (like hiring coyotes to escort them) that could have been going into the amnesty fund. This shows that Ken's position is purely greed based and only has the most minimal affect on national security in his view. National security is at odds with his position. If the USA and the Republican Party are to survive, we will have to move a great amount of people out of jobs and elected positions. We can not afford to have this country converted into a socialist peoples paradise in the process.]

Extra! McCain raises price of citizenship!

[archive note: there is a newer McCain wanted poster at "Bloggin on down the Rogue" in a November 2006 entry]

Senator McCain raised the price of citizenship from $2000 to $3000 tonight in Grand Rapids, Michigan. His illegal alien constituency is going to be PO'd about that!

He tried to hypnotize me close up but it didn't take. I knew going in that there was no real use in getting into a debate over the issue with him. He is so convinced that porous borders, rewards for crossing in the desert, citizenship, social security, the whole shootin' match, will solve our immigration problem. He is one of the "bought" politicians that will support illegals over citizens as cheap labor for the big biz lobby.

Georgie's Used Cars and Discount Green Card Mart

Yes you heard correct folks, down here at Georgie Bush's used car lot and discount green card store, no one will under price us! Hell, next week we will probably be giving them away. This offer is only good to GENUINE illegal aliens. If we check the social security records and find that your number is real and the IRS has a record of you, you must be a citizen and are not eligible for all the great giveaways we have planned for the real constituents of the Senate and White House. So get your butts across the border. Agents will be standing by with voter registration forms at the watering stations.

[Disclaimer: Citizens may not renounce citizenship to get in on these great deals!]

Bush's Failed Homosexual Marriage Amendment

Mr President,

You sleep with the devil and you reap what you sow. The very same senators who helped pass that terrible piece of dung amnesty bill S.2611, are the ones who nixed the ban on homosexual marriage. If you had been of the same mind as the vast majority of Americas citizens you could be been on the right side of S.2611.

Now you bring forth this homosexual marriage issue, knowing we support the amendment.

You were hoping to use it to rally us back around you? How do you figure that could happen when your senate amnesty allies decided that this was one that you dont get. Do you think they listen to us any more now than before?

Trying the bully pulpit is a little late now, George! Reagan was so successful at it because he was always honest with his support base. He spoke to us all the time. He listened to us, but more importantly, he believed in the same things that the heart of America believed. You do not. Your amnesty package, allowing long term law breakers to be forgiven and become citizens is just plain WRONG! Your weak ineffectual gesture toward making the border secure is seen as a peace sign to Vincente Fox and a slap in the face to the citizens of the USA.

Most of us are not listening to you anymore. I should qualify that. We are listening critically to see how you are going to betray us again. We expect nothing more from you than betrayal.

Sincerely,

James Foley

Attention Michigan Republicans...

Terri Lynn Land is having a special $500.00-per-guest reception this coming week [June 9th] and the special fund raiser guest will be none other than the US Senate's renegade numero uno RINO, John McCain. Retainers in attendance will include McCain's Michigan water boY, Chuck Yob. It is time for you to identify the pro-amnesty types in the party. Yob is one! They may be local now, but local politicians have a funny way of gravitating toward State and National offices. Terri Lynn Land is on the second step of the ladder. Does anyone know what her position is on illegal aliens? The fact that she is using McCain as a fund raiser draw is very suggestive.

A line from vaudville days "Is she is, or is she aint?"

The meeting for us party peons is:

Tuesday, June 6th

5:30 - 7:30 PM

At the Grandville LAND 2006 Campaign Headquarters,

4565 Wilson SW, Grandville

Located across the street from the Rivertown Crossings Mall

How to identify pro-amnesty politicians... get them talking on the subject. Find out if they favor comprehensive immigration reform. Let the illegals stay and earn citizenship? Should they be allowed to stay or be deported? If they are allowed to stay what price would they set on a green card and citizenship? Does it get progressively higher the shorter time they have been here? Do they know who are the best forgers of faked time-in-the-USA documents? Would they make an allowance for the cost of those documents to the illegals? Are they in favor of giving credit for time worked for purposes of social security even if the documents say they have been here 20 years and they just arrived. How about earned income credit? Free medical? College tuition? Get to skip paying taxes? Their employers get amnesty for having employed them illegally?

Listen to McCain and see how far he is from all the above... mostly right on! That is what he voted for and what is in the senate amnesty bill! Ask the local politician if he/she favors S.2611. It IS important!

The AXIS - White House, Senate, and Big Business

This axis crosses party lines and includes the leadership from both the Democrat and Republican parties. Our ONLY protection is our elected Representatives in the House. The Axis is determined that it will push amnesty through at any cost.

What happens when a group of people band together and decide to violate their oath of office? They decide "We will refuse to enforce the law." This group is half of a legislative body given the public trust to make laws that will protect the CITIZENS. When they lose focus on CITIZENS and shift to protection of criminals they have lost the public trust and must be removed from office.

We need a citizens option for impeaching public officials to limit the amount of damage they can inflict. SIX years is too long to keep renegade senators in office.

We need to be able to impeach senators by RECALL! Show me where in the constitution that we can not decide that a grievious egregious error has been made in giving the public trust to an elected official and that we wish to correct our mistake. Punishing us for 6 years is cruel and unusual punishment.

These 62 violators of the trust given them by the voting citizens must be removed from office. These 62 have violated the oath they took upon entering the high office they have been entrusted with. They now treat it as an imperial office.

The AXIS

Many large employers of illegal aliens

President George W Bush

The Senate Violators of the Public Trust

YEAs ---62
Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brownback (R-KS) Cantwell (D-WA) Carper (D-DE) Chafee (R-RI) Clinton (D-NY) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Craig (R-ID) Dayton (D-MN) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM) Durbin (D-IL)	Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Frist (R-TN) Graham (R-SC) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Johnson (D-SD) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL)	McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murkowski (R-AK) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Obama (D-IL) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA) Wyden (D-OR)

The Crapitol News June 2, 2006

News of the White House and Senate unholy alliances...

Citizenship For Sale - CHEAP!

A Sign posted on the door to the US Senate chamber.

and their for sale clipping from the Senate Newspaper, The Bullshitter Bullshipper:

 

It would be no surprize that they get maybe 20 million replies to this!

Another day at the office for the US Senate!

Keith Butler's stripes are a'changin'...

I was just over at the Keith Butler for Senate web site to see what his latest ever changing position is on comprehensive immigration reform. Those code words have dissapeared and he is now making noises like a real law and order candidate. He is still very carefully skirting the issue of what to do about the millions of criminal border jumpers who are here now. Lets see if he will change and say that they should be deported. Previously he was for a contrived penalty allowing them to stay, in essence, AMNESTY! Any so-called penalty allowing them to stay in place while legal immigrants await their turns to come here (in some cases for YEARS) is amnesty. The last word I had was that he believes that the country needs a permanent underclass, translation - slaves. They will fill the menial "clean the toilet with a tooth brush" type jobs for pennies per hour. [or so they want you to believe!] What we have now are illegals being hired at jobs that Americans would do except that they have been brought through the door by "temp services" who hold their labor contracts and pay them sub-standard wages. These are not fruit pickers, people! Some of these jobs are actually high-tech. If Keith doesn't believe that they should be deported, then he must be in favor of them taking jobs that depress the wage base for US Citizens who want a job with a living wage.

Michigan and the US needs senators who believe and follow the rule of law, not just make election year professions with fingers crossed behind the back.

How did my Representative vote on amnesty?

I have been asked how the various members of the House of Represenataives voted on HR 4437. Generally it was a party line vote. Republicans voted to pass the bill. Democrats voted against it as expected. Here is the Roll call of the vote.

Source Permalink:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll661.xml

Also see this web site:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2005-661

Same info as the other. This is what I have displayed here.

---

Dec 16, 2005 (109th Congress)

This information comes from the U.S. House website, an official source for voting records.