Update: I’m hoping to get some video up of Durbin but the Beauchamp news may have me sidetracked for awhile. Here’s the roll, though, as promised. Recall that the shamnesty cloture vote this summer failed with 53 votes, not 44, although it was more politically important for the participants to be seen on the right side in that one than it was here, which probably accounts for most of the difference.
Quick and easy scan of Democrats voting against: Baucus, Byrd, Conrad, Dorgan, Landrieu, Pryor, Tester, and good ol’ McCaskill, whose objections to amnesty evidently don’t end at labor concerns. Republicans voting for: Bennett, Coleman, Collins, our friend Larry Craig, Hagel, Hatch, Hutchison, Lott, Lugar, “Amnesty Mel” Martinez, Snowe, and Sam Brownback, who was free to show his true colors today sans 11th-hour switch.
Allah posts the actual votes on his site also (visit and see, read the comments);
The Jena 6 news that you probably don't know:
Media myths about the Jena 6
A local journalist tells the story you haven't heard.
By Craig Franklin
from the October 24, 2007 edition
Page 1 of 3
Opinion editor Josh Burek talks with Craig Franklin about the distorted story of the Jena 6.
Jena, La. - By now, almost everyone in America has heard of Jena, La., because they've all heard the story of the "Jena 6." White students hanging nooses barely punished, a schoolyard fight, excessive punishment for the six black attackers, racist local officials, public outrage and protests – the outside media made sure everyone knew the basics.
There's just one problem: The media got most of the basics wrong. In fact, I have never before witnessed such a disgrace in professional journalism. Myths replaced facts, and journalists abdicated their solemn duty to investigate every claim because they were seduced by a powerfully appealing but false narrative of racial injustice.
I should know. I live in Jena. My wife has taught at Jena High School for many years. And most important, I am probably the only reporter who has covered these events from the very beginning.
The reason the Jena cases have been propelled into the world spotlight is two-fold: First, because local officials did not speak publicly early on about the true events of the past year, the media simply formed their stories based on one-side's statements – the Jena 6. Second, the media were downright lazy in their efforts to find the truth. Often, they simply reported what they'd read on blogs, which expressed only one side of the issue. [link]
Read it all. This is from someone who actually lives there and seems to know what they are talking about.
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent 7 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - President Bush called for $4.4 billion in accelerated funding for "securing our borders and enforcing our laws at the work site" Thursday, as his administration and key senators struggled to revive controversial immigration legislation.
"We're going to show the American people that the promises in this bill will be kept," Bush said, two days after launching a personal rescue mission.
The measure's most controversial feature envisions eventual citizenship for many of the estimated 12 million immigrants now in the country unlawfully. At the same time, it calls for greater border security and a crackdown on the hiring of illegal employees.
Bush made his remarks a few blocks from the Capitol, where the bill's supporters said they were closing in on a tentative agreement that could clear the way for the measure's revival within two weeks. (link)
Do W and the Democrats think that this will make the bill more palatable to the people? Why is it that we need 'emergency-type' funding to do what they SHOULD BE DOING ALREADY? Enforcing the border and the immigration laws have nothing to do with a NEW amnesty try. The laws are already on the books, it's almost like the anti-gun crowd has a hold of this one. If you simply write more laws, the problems will go away (ala gun laws) instead of enforcing the laws you have.
Some Senators are still skeptical (hopefully at least 41) enough that this won't push them over (they rightly ask why the spending is tied to this bad bill and not seperate), and the Democrats definitely want this bill passed before election season is truly in. With luck we can stall or kill this until a new president is sworn in. We know Fred won't sign this bill and probably not Rudy or maybe even Hillary (Obama would).
I just wonder why it is so hard for the pro-illegals to figure out why we are so adamant about enforcing the LAW... but might as well ask why they are tolerant of everything (that agrees with them) and have a love for Islam. __________ Reason amongst the dhimmikrauts
This article was reported by Carl Hulse, Robert Pear and Jeff Zeleny and written by Mr. Hulse.
WASHINGTON, June 8 — It was the moment of truth for legislation that would make the most profound changes in immigration policy in more than 20 years.
Desperate to salvage a measure in which he and others had invested months, Senator Edward M. Kennedy headed to the secluded Capitol suite of Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, to make one last personal plea.
Mr. Kennedy, an immigration advocate since his first days in the Senate nearly 45 years ago, hoped to persuade Mr. Reid to delay a procedural vote that could kill the measure. As the two met shortly after 7 p.m. on Thursday in the well-appointed office that overlooks the Mall, Mr. Reid told Mr. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, that Republicans would just endlessly stall the bill and that it was time to move on. Mr. Reid had already granted enough extensions.
Just minutes before that meeting, Senate Republicans in the middle of the immigration fight had ended an hours-long huddle at which they argued over what demands they would make in exchange for agreeing to cap the debate time. But they could not see eye to eye among themselves and ultimately filed empty-handed out of the office of Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader. (link)
Mary Jo Kopechne didn't give an opinion on the bill.
" type="hidden"> President Bush, trying to recover from a stinging setback on immigration, will personally try in a visit to the Capitol next week to revive the embattled plan for legalizing millions of unlawful immigrants.
Bush's scheduled lunch on Tuesday with GOP senators is part of a campaign by the White House and allies in both parties to placate or outmaneuver conservative Republicans who blocked the broad immigration measure this week. They said Friday they would try again to reach accord on the number of amendments the dissidents could offer.
Opponents of the bill promised to continue fighting all such efforts.
Democratic leaders accused Bush of being too tepid in pushing the legislation, which would tighten borders and offer employers more temporary workers from abroad in addition to providing lawful status to an estimated 12 million illegal aliens and putting many of them on a path toward citizenship (link)
You guys are taking me way to seriously when I said to vote for Ruthie :( (heh)
The last 2 categories are up (and I am in #20) so get over there and vote for those 2.
Amnesty Bill dieing... slowly, but it is dieing. Congrats to Arizona Women on their win in the CWS for softball... I was worried when Tennessee couldn't close out game 2 in the 5th/6th/7th/8th/9th innings (first time jitters?)
About to go home from work, just wanted to post ;)
Update: 1st post cut all my hyperlinks out o.O
Update 2: Thanks to TD for the banner on my sidebar for the awards.
The plan, which was still being finalized, allows the estimated 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the United States to come forward and receive probationary status
So...people who are waiting in their home countries for YEARS...playing by the rules get shafted so the Senators can be seen as "doing something" on illegal immigration??? Senators, the only thing worse than doing nothing is doing something so mind-numblingly stupid and crafting a bill that effectively rewards law-breaking.
This bill is so eerily similar to the 1986 bill that it is scary...
Take a look at what Ed Meese (Reagan's Attorney General) has to say about the 1986 Amnesty Bill here;
President Reagan set out to correct the loss of control at our borders. Border security and enforcement of immigration laws would be greatly strengthened—in particular, through sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants. If jobs were the attraction for illegal immigrants, then cutting off that option was crucial.
He also agreed with the legislation in adjusting the status of immigrants—even if they had entered illegally—who were law-abiding long-term residents, many of whom had children in the United States. Illegal immigrants who could establish that they had resided in America continuously for five years would be granted temporary resident status, which could be upgraded to permanent residency after 18 months and, after another five years, to citizenship. It wasn’t automatic. They had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible.
So... how well did THAT turn out... I wonder ??? Anyone see any real ENFORCEMENT going on?? Anyone see the borders locked down and illegal immigrants numbers declining? Nope??!! Me either ...
I turns out that there is a huge long-term cost to this AMNESTY bill. It will strain our social services as the people who come herei llegally will be marginally employable and will not be a net-positive taxpayer. In other words, they will use up more resources than they contirbute. Now this is bad enough when it is home-grown people, but immigration is about controlling the flow of immigrants through our borders so that we are stronger..not weaker.
So with this drain on our local, state and federal coffers what do you think they governments are gonna do?? Either raise taxes or lower benefits on such things as Social Security. Being that I'm 38 years old...I'm SCREWED !! At least in terms of being able to enjoy the same level of Soc. Security benefits that the generations before me enjoyed. And until that time, my taxes are going to go up to pay for the welfare benefits of people that SHOULD NOT BE HERE !!! It is bad enough that the government is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Its even worse when he robs Peter to pay Paul and Jose' and Jesus and Carmen and Abdullah, etc...
Think I'm crazy? Then you outta take a look at the testimony of Robert Rector (Heritage Foundation) before the House Judiciary Committee;
Here is some of what he had to say;
The National Academy of Sciences in a very comprehensive study of the fiscal impact of immigration said that each high school dropout immigrant coming into the United States costs the taxpayers of the United States about $100,000 over the course of his lifetime. That would mean if you took that figure, and that's net of the taxes that he puts in, if you took that figure and applies it to the current illegal population it would indeed result in something like a net cost of a half a trillion dollars over the course of lifetime.
Now, with respect to the costs of the Senate bill, the Senate bill one of its key features is to give amnesty to around 10 million current illegal immigrants. That means that they will probably pay more in taxes, but it also means that they're eligible for a much wider variety of welfare programs. And as a result of that increased welfare eligibility, I calculate that the amnesty alone would have a direct cost of around $16 billion a year.
He goes on to explain other unexpected costs and his main zinger was this one;
We have a very expensive, very large welfare system in the United States. We simply cannot make it unconditionally available to huge numbers of people from less developed nations
You can read the other people's testimony as well and you'll find yourself asking the same question... who is gonna pay for all of this??
Especially when the bill allows so many "set asides" by any Administration so that even the $5000 fine can be waived. And you know it WILL be waived when Reid and Pelosi complain that making someone who makes $3/hour pay a $5000 fine is "heartless" and "cruel" and something only "despicable Republicans do". and then "poof" - there goes the fine.
In short - we have another Harriet Myers situation here. It takes everyone calling their Representatives and Senators and letting them know that if they vote for this deal they are going to lose their next primary or general election. I have contacted Sen. Jon Kyl here: Contact
Sen. Kyl is the point man for those who want to keep this Amnesty from proceeding to the President's desk.
I told Sen Kyl that I would not support the Senate's Campaign Committee any longer if any GOP senator voted for that bill. Additionally, my money and support would instead go to the primary challenger of those Senators. I may not be one of their constituents and they may think they don't have to listen to me as I cannot vote for or against them. But I CAN help BANKROLL their opponent. Thats the beautiful thing about campaign contributions and the internet.
My next email is to my Senior Senator of Virginia John Warner-R. He is going to get the same message (along with the counterparts in the House).
I had been warming up to McCain due to his stance on the war and finishing the job, etc... Many others were too. He's finished now... you heard it here first. He will NOT get the Republican nomination for President in 2008.
I'm serious...I feel like Ronald Reagan did when he said that he didn't leave the Democrat Party - it left him (yes Reagan was an FDR Democrat at one time).
If the GOP keeps this charade (of acting like Democrats) up...on what basis do they have a right to come looking for our votes in 2008??
If they keep acting like de facto Democrats and letting Teddy roll them then I have no qualms with letting them lose big in 2008.
Stumble It!
