Posted on 06/26/2007 6:55:02 AM PDT by truthkeeper
Edited on 06/26/2007 12:08:48 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
ALL HANDS TO ACTION: CALL, EMAIL, WRITE, FAX, VISIT YOUR SENATORS TODAY!!
As you all know, today is the all-important cloture vote on The Thing. I understand it is supposed to be held at 11:30 a.m. EST, so I figured I'd get the thread up for the prelude that is sure to take place.
If you all haven't seen it, please check out this thread on the vote count per Numbers USA.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1856075/posts
In the meantime, keep blowing out their phone and fax lines. It's being said that the WH arm-twisting and pressure on Capitol Hill right now is extremely intense.
Unfortunately, I agree with you. The American people take our current prosperity as a birthright and the normal course of events, unlike my parents' generation that went through the Great Depression and WWII. They understood how fragile life can be and how quickly things can change.
Things are now moving quickly; and I don't see the kind of statesmen/women emerging who have the character or ability to deal with this mess. Fred Thompson did refer to "suicidal maniacs" in one of his recent speeches. Perhaps he has what it takes to look the nation in the eye and point out the inevitable consequences of ignoring reality at this late date. I'm not holding my breath.
Me neither. I just see pandering politicians who are reluctant to tell the people the truth. In the next 10 years some very difficult decisions must be made on the entitlement programs. The status quo is not an option. The politicians will be forced to make some tough decisions. I suspect that they will try to take the easy way out again by kicking the can down the road for a few more years rather than changing the flawed nature of these programs, which are unsustainable as currently structured. We are facing over $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
Immigration bill? I’ve been concerned with more important issues like Paris Hilton.
Bush who?
For those talking about bumper stickers, I was thinking of getting an anti Bush one, BUT, thought better of it. An anti Bush sticker might encourage people to vote democratic, inadvertantly. I think its better to get an anti illegal alien or anti amnesty sticker instead since that attacks both the dems and the weak republicans.
They have some here.
http://www.bumperart.com/Immigration.htm
Here’s a ‘Down with Republicrats’ bumper sticker.
Richard Burr showed his true colors today. Bush yellow.
“The President believes in a comprehensive bill. He believes in taking on big issues and not simply pushing them down the road.....”
Get a life, Bushbot. Your hero is wrong on this and so are you. Neither of you seem to get it either and that’s not too much of a surprise. Bush and his bots are not the brightest people in the country.
Dick Morris last night to losely state: “GW Bush is sacrificing his Presidency in order to keep the Republican Party a viable force in the upcoming decades.”
He then went on to cite precentages in the ever increasing size of the Hispanic American Voting block and how combined with the African American Voting block will keep the Pubs as a minority due to the give-everything-to-you-party—the Dems.
In essence, Bush was willing to sacrifice his Presidency for the good of the Republican party.
Not sure how to process this information. Makes sense on vague levels. However, I was under the impression that most Hispanic Americans were conservative in the first place???
The informed voters in this country (like freepers) know that the liberals, Dims, RINOS and the MSM are pushing amnesty down our throats.....but our Republican president will forever be described as the engine behind the bill.
Ergo, to the uninformed and stupid among the masses (the majority), this is a "Republican initiative" because the president is Republican.
This is reality. So Morris is off the mark, as usual.
Leni
Thanks for the information. I’m going to copy it for reference. Jim Robinson wants any such ad efforts to be handled independently of FR. Until I discuss this with him to know exactly what his expectations are, I’m putting the add on a back burner temporarily.
Yesterday I started an AFIRE! ping list which will ping to threads regarding the Immigration bill both in the Senate and House, and the topics of Immigration and Congressional reform.
No kiddin'! And I will be writing my congressman, Don Manzullo (R) IL on that subject. Also my state senator and congressman who are both good Republicans. We need to get both Turbin and Hussein out of Illinois politics; Blago as well.
I have to wonder how that guy keeps his job as a political analyst - everything he says is wrong. Not just wrong, but completely wrong. I remember 3 years ago when he said that we would be in Iran within a year.
Heads up! Need to know.
Borderline Insanity
Will the Senate allow the U.N. to control U.S. immigration law?
S.1639 states on pages 388 -389:
(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
(i) supersede obligations under any treaty or other international agreement to which the United States is a party, including –
(I) the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, done at The Hague, October 25, 1980 (TIAS 11670);
(II) the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action, adopted at Vienna, June 25, 1993; and
(III) the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, adopted at New York, November 20, 1959; or
(ii) limit any right or remedy under such international agreements.
The United States is “a party” to a good many international agreements. These agreements are all too often “wish lists” unconstrained by economic reality or fallen human nature.
Examples:
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights guarantees “continuous improvement of living conditions” as well as “the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.”
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women includes a demand for “complete disarmament, in particular nuclear disarmament under strict and effective international control.”
Congress can transform any treaty into American law
Some people, Thomas Geoghegan of the American Prospect among them, actually think we should junk our Constitution’s treaty-ratification process:
Let’s just ignore the Treaty Clause (Article II, section 2, clause 2) of the U.S. Constitution. … [W]e just pass a simple law. “Yes we will comply with Kyoto.” Or: “We’re in the ICC.” It’s a straight up or down vote in the House. Then it’s 50 votes plus the veep in the Senate, if we get rid of the filibuster under special fast-track-type rules.
I asked Matthew Spalding, director of the Heritage Foundation’s B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies, about the legal impact of the Senate passing any legislation which includes references to unratified treaties. Spalding said:
The Senate can’t ratify treaties that have not been presented to them by the executive. They can only provide advice and consent after the president exercises the power “to make” the treaty.
Nevertheless, they can incorporate the provisions of the treaty as law, and commit us as law (but not international treaty commitment). There have been other cases in which we agree to abide by something not ratified.
WE ARE THE WORLD
Both the Vienna Declaration of 1993 and the Declaration on the Rights of the Child of 1959 have dreadful implications for any American concerned about mandatory multilingualism, a reasonable border control policy or abuse of public benefits by immigrants.
The 1993 Vienna Declaration and Program of Action guarantees the right of linguistic minorities to “use their own language in private and in public, freely and without interference or any form of discrimination” and insists upon “the elimination of all forms of discrimination against” migrant workers as well as “the rights of everyone to a standard of living adequate for their health and well-being, including food and medical care, housing and the necessary social services.”
Note that there are no distinctions made between legal and illegal residents of a nation. All are to receive “necessary social services” and have those services provided in their own language.
The Declaration on the Rights of the Child (1959) cited by the Senate immigration bill is a U.N. resolution. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) is a formal international agreement signed in 1995 by the Clinton administration, but never ratified by the United States Senate.
The 1989 Convention, not the 1959 Declaration, was cited by Justice Anthony Kennedy’s controversial Supreme Court ruling in Roper v. Simmons in 2005.
Because of the Kennedy opinion, the 1989 Convention is “radioactive” in a way that the 1959 Declaration is not. Still, the rights granted by the 1959 Declaration are spectacularly sweeping:
Every child, without any exception whatsoever, shall be entitled to these rights, without distinction or discrimination on account of race, colour [sic], sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, whether of himself or of his family. … The child shall have the right to adequate nutrition, housing, recreation and medical services. … [A] child of tender years shall not, save in exceptional circumstances, be separated from his mother.
Given the creativity of immigration lawyers and the willingness of federal judges to rewrite legislation according to their personal beliefs, chances are good that these endorsements of U.N. resolutions will be strictly enforced.
The Senate has a choice: (A) pass a 21stt-century version of the Bricker amendment making our Constitution superior to any and all international agreements or (B) continue to oppose limiting debate (cloture) on the immigration bill. Given this is but one of many problems with the legislation, “B” seems like the right vote.
— Jim Boulet Jr. is the executive director of English First.
Links at site:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWNjM2M1YjYzNzIyNjM3NDkwY2YxMjNhN2U0ZDI0NWU=
bttt
This bill will hurt SS, not help it. SS is a pay as you go system. Good night.
... and how exactly did you arrive at that conclusion from my remarks?
If you really believe that illegal immigrants will HELP SS...you may want to read this:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=28928
“If we have black pastors running around the country preaching that Latinos and Blacks have to unite — against whom? White people?”
No, not white people. Just white, christian, non-homosexual males.
The DC Chapter had nothing to do with it, although I’m sure they would be glad to take the credit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.