USA Mega

Lottery Places

The time is now 12:23 pm

You last visited
June 5, 2026, 12:00 pm

All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Home › Blogs › konane's Blog

konane's Blog

Page 572 of 587

"Criminal alien exception blocked

  Mad   Security of the US and its citizens from any threat from anywhere is not a concern of Democrats, period ... proven it time and time again.  They're too busy constructing a socialist empire for them to rule from ivory towers to be bothered with our security. 

Democrat Barney Frank worked overtime to gut our standing immigration bill ..... https://blogs.lotterypost.com/konane/2006/04/laying-it-at-the-feet-of-who-caused-it.htm    now this.

"Criminal alien exception blocked

 By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
"Senate Democrats refused to allow consideration of an amendment yesterday that would bar illegal aliens convicted of felonies from obtaining U.S. citizenship.
    Democrats said the amendment would "gut" the immigration bill under consideration in the Senate and refused to allow a vote on it.
    "It hurts the bill," said Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "It hurts the very foundation and what I believe is the spirit" of the legislation.
    Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas restated the purpose of their amendment and appeared incredulous that anyone would object to it.
    "I do not have to explain in any more detail than what I have as why I don't want to move forward," Mr. Reid said. "I don't agree with the amendment. I don't think it's going to benefit this legislation that is pending before the Senate and I'm going to do what I can to prevent a vote on it."
    Later, Mr. Reid added, "We're not going to allow amendments like Kyl-Cornyn to take out what we believe is the goodness of this bill."
    The entire bill is "in effect being blocked by the other side," said Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican.
    After debate over the bill ground to a halt last night, Democrats filed a "cloture motion" that could set up a final vote before the end of the week on an immigration bill that many conservatives view as "amnesty." The bill allows illegal aliens to pay a $2,000 fine and remain working in the U.S. while applying for citizenship.
    The Kyl-Cornyn amendment would have barred from U.S. citizenship any illegal alien who has been convicted of a felony, three misdemeanors or refused a court order to leave the country.
    Democrats said the amendment is not necessary because crimes of "moral turpitude" such as rape and murder already prevent an illegal from obtaining U.S. citizenship, as would violations of drug laws.
    Mr. Kyl came to the floor and listed the crimes he said would not be included without his amendment, such as burglary, assault and battery, possession of an unregistered, sawed-off shotgun, kidnapping and alien smuggling. "
Entry #239

NBC's Dateline and NASCAR

Backfired attempt Scared  at making agenda look like news.  Green laugh  Green laugh  Green laugh 

Powerlineblog.com quoted as written to show that Michelle Malkin broke the story first and AP picked it up from her.  Conservative bloggers are ahead of the maninstream news organizations quite frequently now, are showing greater research and accuracy in their reports. 

Live embedded links. 

"NBC: Busted!

 

Michelle Malkin had a scoop yesterday: NBC's Dateline program put out a call for Muslims--but only those who "look Muslim"--to parade around at a NASCAR event, hoping to draw a hostile reaction from red-state "bigots" that NBC could film. So Dateline wanted to stage a fake news story intended to discredit NASCAR fans (i.e., conservatives) by catching them in the act of bigotry.

Michelle has follow-ups here, here, and here. The latest is that the Associated Press has picked up Michelle's story, and NASCAR has responded:"It is outrageous that a news organization of NBC's stature would stoop to the level of going out to create news instead of reporting news," Poston said.

"Any legitimate journalist in America should be embarrassed by this stunt. The obvious intent by NBC was to evoke reaction, and we are confident our fans won't take the bait," he said."................

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013661.php

________________________

"NASCAR: Dateline NBC's Plan 'Outrageous'

CHARLOTTE, N.C. - NASCAR said it was "outrageous" that "Dateline NBC" targeted one of its race tracks last weekend for a possible segment on anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States.

NASCAR said NBC confirmed it was sending Muslim-looking men to a race, along with a camera crew to film fans' reactions. The NBC crew was "apparently on site in Martinsville, Va., walked around and no one bothered them," NASCAR spokesman Ramsey Poston said Wednesday.

"It is outrageous that a news organization of NBC's stature would stoop to the level of going out to create news instead of reporting news," Poston said.

"Any legitimate journalist in America should be embarrassed by this stunt. The obvious intent by NBC was to evoke reaction, and we are confident our fans won't take the bait," he said." ..........

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060405/ap_on_sp_au_ra_ne/car_nascar_dateline_1

 

Entry #238

Group behind demonstrations

Directly from Powerlineblog.com about the underpinnings of the immigration demonstrations which are causing our legislators, the Senate in particular to abandon any courage in dealing with the issue or simply enforcing existing laws.

"Strange Bedfellows

 

This morning's Washington Times reports the astonishing--to me, anyway--news that last week's massive pro-illegal immigrant demonstration in Los Angeles was organized by International A.N.S.W.E.R. We've written about International A.N.S.W.E.R. a number of times; for example, here. It is a Communist organization and a front for the Workers World Party. The Workers World Party has been around for quite a while. It is one of the last unapologetically Stalinist organizations in the world; it supported the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. More recently, the WWP and ANSWER have supported dictators like Saddam Hussein and North Korea's Kim Il Jong.

These same groups organized or participated in most of the major demonstrations against the Iraq war; the fact that Communist organizations were heavily involved in the antiwar movement was, for the most part, an unreported story.

I once did some research to try to find out who is behind the Workers World Party. I obtained the government forms that it filed. Those forms are not required to identify donors, so, while I could infer that the WWP is kept afloat by donations from a few wealthy donors, I couldn't tell who they were. The individual named on the documents did not return calls asking for more information. "  ........

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013649.php#013649

Entry #237

Laying it at the feet of who caused it

A suggested read as to which party openly paved the way for both the 9-11 illegals, also illegals marches which are proclaiming ownership of the US. 

Allow lawless dregs of society to run roughshod over law abiding citizens is the communist way of throwing society out of its normal historical order into chaos and gaining control while telling the gullible they're the common man's party.  In this instance open the borders so more can pour in with impunity. 

"Immigrating Terror
By Rocco DiPippo
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 4, 2006

"In the years since the Twin Towers were destroyed, Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA, has come under fire from several writers who claim that immigration laws he wrote made it easier for foreign subversives to enter America, set up terror cells, and raise funds for extremists. One writer, Chuck Morse, who ran against Frank as an Independent in 2000, asserts Frank bears responsibility for loosening restrictions on student and temporary visas, which eased the way for the 9/11 hijackers to enter the U.S. to plan and carry out their attacks.

 

 

Frank denies that any of his legislative activity contributed to these things. He implies that “the Republicans” approved of his immigration legislation. He says that his immigration laws were good ones. He says poor enforcement of them was the problem. He says that the 9/11 Commission cleared him of any culpability in the weakening of America’s ability to keep out extremists and foreign terrorists. He calls those who say his immigration policies contributed to 9/11 “right-wing extremists.”

 

There is evidence – presented later in this article – that approximately 19 months before 9/11, Barney Frank had been given specific information indicating that at least some of his immigration legislation was causing a massive infiltration of America by radical Muslims and radical Muslim clerics. He did nothing in response to that information but continued writing and pushing legislation that further relaxed immigration requirements and granted additional rights to non-U.S. citizens, even to those who had been deported from the U.S. for committing felonies.

 

All legislation must be discussed within the historical context in which it was written. Frank began writing immigration legislation while the domestic surveillance abilities of the FBI and the foreign surveillance abilities of the CIA were being devastated by attacks by the Democratic Party, the radical Left, and “civil liberties” groups including the National Lawyers Guild, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union. The Alien Border Control Committee (ABCC), formed by President Reagan in 1986 to coordinate the FBI and CIA in rooting out and deporting Islamists and alien immigrant supporters of Muslim terror, was effectively forced to dismantle by the coordinated efforts of the aforementioned parties. And Congressman Frank contributed to the ABCC’s demise by writing legislation that stripped its authority to deport alien extremists based on their political beliefs.

 

From 1981 onward, while terror attacks around the world by Muslim radicals were rising dramatically and America’s intelligence agencies were being neutered by the Left, Congressman Barney Frank legislated to loosen America’s immigration controls. At the same time, he consistently voted to slash funding for the CIA, the FBI, and the U.S. military.

 

Frank’s most far-reaching work on immigration law occurred in the context of a major overhaul of the McCarran-Walter act of 1952. That act contains the body of U.S. immigration law. Its overhaul during the 1980s culminated in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1990. To expedite the work, the project was divided into two parts: an overhaul of legal immigration laws and a separate overhaul of illegal immigration laws. Congressman Frank wanted to reform the exclusion provisions of legal immigration laws, laws that codified the things a prospective legal immigrant to the U.S. could be denied entry for.

 

“The exclusions were part of the legal immigration provisions, and as a member of the Democratic majority on the immigration subcommittee, I asked for and was accorded by my colleagues the right to take the lead in rewriting the exclusion provisions,” says Frank. [1]

 

Frank concentrated on removing the ideological exclusions. Those exclusions were used to prevent people with totalitarian views from immigrating to the U.S. and causing unrest. They were also used to deport legal aliens who had caused unrest or engaged in subversive activities in America. Frank categorized the exclusions as “relics of the McCarthy era.” His associating the ideological exclusions with “McCarthyism” is disingenuous for many reasons, not least because Senator Joseph McCarthy concentrated his anti-Communist efforts on U.S. citizens, not aliens or visitors.

 

In fact, ideological exclusions were not “relics of the McCarthy era.” They originated from the Alien Registration Act of 1940, signed into law by President Roosevelt as a national security measure on the eve of World War II. The bill made it a federal crime for anyone to “knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association.”

 

Frank was passionate about removing ideological exclusions. “I was in an ideal situation because while I was in favor of the overall bill, I cared most of all about the exclusions, and I was prepared to try to defeat the bill if I was not successful in reforming what I considered to be the most outrageous aspect of American immigration law, the antigay, anti-free-speech McCarthyite hangover,” said Frank.

 

To Frank, the ideological exclusions were inconsistent with the notion of free speech. But the question was: Should the full First Amendment right to free speech be extended to non-U.S. citizens while they were in America? Frank said yes. He then flipped the issue on its head by arguing that denying entry to foreigners with subversive or “dangerous” views and radical ideologies was a de facto violation of American citizens' First Amendment rights to hear those views.

 

“Beginning around the turn of the century,” said Frank, “American law contained a large number of exclusions to protect what legislators apparently thought was a fragile citizenry from all manner of dangerous foreign influences. Anarchists, people who believed in polygamy, Communists, people who knew people who were related to Communists, people who thought and said unpleasant things about America – the list of those kept out of America was egregious and in total violation of the spirit of free expression.”

 

It is typical for left-wing politicians to waltz past the bones of Communism’s 150 million victims on their way to trivializing the dangers that radical ideologues present. Frank is no exception, since he considers foreigners who hold totalitarian views to be of no concern to national security, a view he has held since at least 1981, the year he officially began working to eliminate ideological exclusions. The Soviet Union, America’s long-time communist enemy, did not collapse until 1990. Though Frank’s final exclusion amendment included language making deportable “any alien who participated in Nazi persecution,” there was no clause barring any alien who participated in Communist persecution.

 

When Frank’s exclusion amendment became law, it said aliens could not be excluded or deported “because of any past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations which, if engaged in by a United States citizen in the United States, would be protected under the Constitution of the United States.”

 

Frank used the elimination of ideological exclusions to facilitate the removal of another long-standing exclusion statute, one truly unjust. It is important to mention this since it raises questions concerning his motives for legislating against ideological exclusion in the first place.

 

Frank tailored his attack on ideological exclusions to expedite the removal of the sexual preference exclusion, an exclusion that denied homosexual immigrants entry to the U.S. Given the cultural climate of the 1980s, a stand-alone effort to have the sexual preference exclusion removed would not have been supported by many Congressmen, regardless of their private views on homosexuality. So in a brilliant legislative sleight-of-hand, Frank crafted the comprehensive immigration exclusion amendment to define the only reasons that entry to America could be denied – and he left the sexual preference exclusion out.

 

That strategy of omission put anyone wanting to continue the ban on admitting homosexual immigrants in the unsavory position of having to sponsor a separate amendment seeking to continue that ban. In his essay “A Case Study in the Effective Use of the Political Process,” Frank explains his strategy:

 

My intention was to take the legitimate bases for excluding people from this country – namely, that they would in some real way be dangerous to our well-being – and embody them in a new section that would replace the existing obnoxious [ideological exclusion] sections. I would deal with the anti-gay exclusion simply by leaving it out of the re-draft. Thus, no separate vote would be taken on whether or not to repeal this provision, because its abolition would be accomplished by omission. And since I was part of the majority that would be presenting the new bill, the burden in Congress would thus be shifted to those who sought to preserve this homophobic aspect.

 

In other words, Frank took an issue concerning national security and parlayed it into a significant victory for gay rights.

 

In spite of security concerns, the ideological exclusion is removed

 

In 1987, over the objections of the State Department because of security concerns, Frank’s exclusion amendment was made temporary law. Though President Reagan also objected to Frank’s ideological exclusions amendment, he accepted it in compromise to get broader aspects of the McCarran-Walters revamp passed into law. For the first time in American history, the full First Amendment right to free speech and free association, once exclusively enjoyed by full U.S. citizens, had been granted to non-citizens and visitors to the United States. The moment Barney Frank’s exclusions amendment was made law, it became unlawful, on the basis of their beliefs alone, to deny entry to immigrants or other foreign nationals with radical ideologies. It also made it nearly impossible to deport them once they were here.

 

Three years later, the overhaul of McCarran-Walter was finished, and it became law as the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1990. Frank’s ideological exclusions amendment remained intact, except for a single word. The final amendment said that an alien could not be excluded from entry into the U.S. nor deported once there ''because of any past, current or expected beliefs, statements or associations which, if engaged in by a United States citizen in the United States, would be protected under the Constitution.” Frank had also wanted to prevent the U.S. from denying entry to immigrants based on past “activities,” but under pressure from the Bush State Department, Frank was forced to drop “activities” from the amendment’s final wording.

 

The New York Times, which vigorously supported Frank and his fellow Democrats’ drive to remove ideological exclusions, reported its permanent removal on Oct. 26, 1990: “Representative Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who was the chief House negotiator in the conference committee, said the new provisions worked out Wednesday night and today 'made rational the reasons a person can be excluded,' and added, ‘We are saying you can't exclude someone because of their speech, their beliefs, or their associations.’” [Emphasis added]

 

Some changes were made to the 1990 exclusion amendment in 1996, but Frank’s ideological exclusions amendment remained untouched and in force until after the 9/11 attacks. The 1996 exclusion list allowed immigration officials to bar aliens from entry or deport them for the following terrorism-related reasons:

 

(1) has engaged in a terrorist activity,

 

(2) a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity .

 

(3) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity,

 

(4) is a representative of a foreign terrorist organization, as designated by the Secretary under section 219, or

 

(5) is a member of a foreign terrorist organization, as designated by the Secretary under section 219, which the alien knows or should have known is a terrorist organization is inadmissible.

 

But U.S. immigration officials could not deny entry to or deport aliens solely on the basis of their political or ideological beliefs or the associations they engaged in while in America. And the remaining exclusions, as they related to terrorism, were filled with ambiguities that monkey-wrenched the process of deporting suspect aliens expeditiously. The Center for Constitutional Rights, National Lawyers Guild, and other left-wing groups lined up to exploit those ambiguities. They filed endless litigation in defense of aliens arrested for suspicion of involvement in crime, terrorism or terrorist-related activity.

 

James R. Edwards of the Hudson Institute sums up the overall effect of Barney Frank’s elimination of ideological exclusion:

 

History teaches that foreign ideologues have long sought to promote their beliefs and advance their causes on American soil. Alien subversives have spied, spread propaganda and stolen state and industrial secrets. Foreign anarchists, communists and other radicals have sought to make converts, raise funds, organize followers and otherwise exploit American freedoms...In short, the 1990 Immigration Act’s revision of exclusion grounds preserved the spirit of the McGovern and Moynihan [Frank] Amendments. Indeed, this law made it much easier for aliens who hold radical, dangerous, anti-American or subversive political beliefs to enter and remain in the United States. This perversion of the First Amendment means the guy who preaches hatred, pollutes hearts and minds, steeps persuadable people in reasons to harm Americans and wage war from within against America…gets a free pass.

 

 A Graphic Warning Ignored

 

On January 26, 2000, at 11 a.m., in Room 2237 of the Rayburn House Office Building, the Avalon Project at Yale Law School for the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims held a hearing. During that presentation, testimony was given by experts on terrorism and immigration regarding the vast influx of Islamist ideologues and other extremists into the U.S. and Canada. One of those experts, Steven Emerson, described, in great and shocking detail the large number of foreign Islamic radicals and radical clerics entering the U.S. each year. Emerson said, “U.S. officials say they are virtually powerless to stop the influx of known militants into the United States for reasons ranging from lack of adequate intelligence to easy circumvention of the watch list to legal restrictions in stopping self-described religious clerics from entering the United States.” (Emphasis added.)

 

Those “legal restrictions” were a clear reference to Barney Frank’s ideological exclusions amendment, which forbade denying entry to or deporting aliens based solely on their beliefs, ideologies, or associations. Rep. Frank was a member of that House Subcommittee on Immigration Claims that the Avalon Project had addressed. And Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-TX, who works closely with Frank on immigration matters, had physically attended the Avalon hearing.

 

Five hundred and ninety-four days after that hearing, 19 months later, Muslim radicals, acting out their radical beliefs, murdered 3,000 Americans under a clear, blue sky.

 

How many of the hundreds, if not thousands, of Muslim radicals and their Islamic clerics, who legally entered America under Barney Frank’s amendment, aided the 9/11 murderers? How many of them had attended to some operational detail of the 9/11 plot? How many cheered and supported it, or excused it in front of their mosques? How many alien Muslim radicals remain in the U.S., awaiting a signal to murder? How many of them have become full U.S. citizens?

 

Most importantly, how many American hearts and minds did these ideologues poison with their hatred? What will the result of that be?

 

After 9/11, the Patriot Act became law and Congressman Frank’s ideological exclusion amendment was effectively suspended. Visa laws were significantly tightened up and the enforcement of immigration laws increased. Frank does not like what he sees.

 

 “When 3,000 Americans were murdered by illegal immigrant terrorists on September 11,” says Frank, “that was the end of rational immigration policy in the United States.”

 

Or rather, it was the beginning.

 

Rocco DiPippo is a freelance political writer and publisher of The Autonomist blog

 

ENDNOTES:

 [1] Barney Frank, A Case Study in the Effective Use of the Political Process, an essay published in Creating Change: Sexuality, Public Policy and Civil Rights by John D'Emilio, William B. Turner and Urvashi Vaid (Stonewall Inn Editions 2002)

 

Note: While Rep. Frank’s categorizing of the 9/11 killers as “illegal immigrant terrorists” is, in the strictest sense, technically true, it is a misleading categorization. When applying for their visas, none of the hijackers-to-be admitted to being members in the terrorist al-Qaeda organization, an admission that would have made them ineligible for a visa. Hence, technically speaking, since they did not disclose this (assuming they were even asked about it), the visas that all of them held were obtained illegally making them technically, but not practically, null and void. In addition, some of the killers had removed pages containing visas from countries on a U.S. terror watch list, where they had obtained training. Again, this made their visas technically illegal. The most important fact is that all of the 9/11 hijackers entered the U.S. with non-counterfeit, functionally legal temporary visas. And the ones who traveled to and from America while planning the attacks, did so with ease. Collectively, the hijackers entered the U.S. 33 times in 21 months. Between them, they had a total of 68 contacts with immigration and consular officials. Who can forget this?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=21894

Entry #236

EU "Corporate Social Restriction

Interesting to see what doesn't work in Europe and remember this is the continent Kerry wanted the US to walk lockstep behind as a social and economic model. 

Socialism and its "business models" only work on the drawing board in a vacuum 100 years ago, never in today's real world with real people who like to improve their lives by making free informed, unencumbered choices.

We can use their hard won experience as a vital lesson of how NOT to do it. 

"Corporate Social Restriction

By Carlo Stagnaro, Co-Authored by Lawrence A. Kogan

Source TCSDaily.com

"In recent years Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become a mantra. A complex movement has been campaigning throughout Europe for high labor, environmental, and human rights standards, even though it is not quite clear what 'is meant by "high". The movement comprises Western trade unions, environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs), and human rights activists who have little faith in the ability of private companies and free markets to generate wealth and improve living conditions for all workers. In fact, these groups believe that there exists a threshold beyond which a company's profits become too high, inequitable, and even immoral.

 

The CSR movement has grown to become a potent regional political force, and has thus far succeeded in causing many companies to "voluntarily" adopt or develop programs that have nothing at all to do with their core businesses. They range from special commitments to environmental and labor conditions, to aid initiatives in developing countries that are often accompanied by information and education-based campaigns. Notwithstanding the costs incurred and distractions suffered by such companies in pursuit of CSR, many critics within the CSR movement are still not satisfied.

 

Sensing that companies are employing CSR disingenuously as a mere advertising façade to cover up their otherwise socially bereft conduct, CSR activists have sought to raise the level of "public accountability". They now want the current voluntary benchmarks converted into something more concrete: mandatory requirements. Their goal, simply, is to impose upon companies third-party monitoring and enforcement systems, thus providing themselves with an ample source of future employment, to ensure that pure and unadulterated CSR is practiced company- and region-wide. And they have enlisted none other than national governments and international organizations, including the United Nations, which endorse public "naming and shaming" campaigns in order to "smoke out" (expose and extinguish) corporations' heretical practices. The movement is especially strong in the European Union, where the Commission is expected to and often does embrace every request.

 

If you combine the political agenda of the CSR movement and the political power of the European Commission, the result may well be explosive. In fact, Europe's business climate is already less-than-welcoming. There continues to be a persistently low rate of economic growth and technological innovation, and a dramatic rise in the number of costly regulations that require strict company compliance. It is no surprise, then, that European companies have chosen to invest significantly less on local research & development than their American and Asian counterparts.

 

If recent media reports are any indication, perhaps the Commission has finally awakened from its largely self-imposed stupor, and has discovered the distinctly negative influence that the movement has had on European corporate performance. Indeed, Enterprise and Industry Commissioner Günther Verheugen might have been so startled by what he found when he actually took the trouble to look, that he "moved [the Commission] towards a more pro-business view on CSR over the past year." This change of heart has resulted in last month's launch of the "European Alliance for CSR". The alliance focuses on enterprises as the "primary actors in CSR". This is an elegant way of signaling that, at least for the time being, CSR is and should be the business of companies, and not the business of NGOs or the Commission. "The Commission has opted for a voluntary approach which is more effective and less bureaucratic," Verheugen said. "Since CSR is about voluntary business behavior, we can only encourage it if we work with business."

 

CSR proponents, such as the European Trade Union Confederation and Friends of the Earth, attacked Verheugen as a hijacker of CSR. Despite his attempt to implement a soft move from the old to a new concept of CSR, however, one must seriously question the Commission's ability to stay the course in the face of rabid NGO opposition. No matter how one "packages" CSR the problem of unmasking its true identity will remain, as long as the core issue underlying CSR is left unresolved: what is the social responsibility of a business? According to renowned economist and Nobel laureate, Milton Friedman, "there is one and only one social responsibility of business -- to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud." Although this makes perfect sense in the increasingly competitive and low-margin global marketplace in which companies operate, regionally-focused and regulatory-minded NGOs and EU bureaucrats abhor it.

 

If a business has any "social" corporate responsibility at all, it is owed to the shareholders and debt-holders who keep it going. Plus, in order to survive and flourish another day so that it might later consider redeploying excess profits to "social philanthropic causes", a business must also competently serve its market constituents. If Jean Q. Consumer is different from Jean Q. Citizen, then the products and services a company offers for sale may also need to be different. For instance, Jean Q. Consumer may only want high quality and performance-driven goods and services at an affordable price, while Jean Q. Citizen might not be so concerned. He might instead demand only goods and services with a "high" level of environmental, labor and human rights protections, for which she would be willing to pay a higher price, even though she does not quite know what those protections really mean. Is it substantively different than "low" standards? How is this measured? Who makes such a determination? Is it verifiable and truthful?

 

In the end, the decision to purchase one rather than the other of these types of products or services is part personal and part market-driven. And, despite what the NGO community often claims, there exists no moral difference between the companies that respond to these different demands. Indeed, one may argue that each such company is socially responsible.

 

EU bureaucrats and European NGOs recognize the truth about market influences, and have developed ways to distort it. One such way is to identify artificial distinctions between products and services, such as "low" and "high" environment, worker, and human rights content, and to falsely claim that the former are not socially responsible because they pose unacceptable health and environmental hazards to the public. When this distortion rises to the political sphere as the result of well-organized and funded NGO public fear campaigns, it is usually doomed to turn into anti-business regulations that raise costs to all businesses, harming both shareholders and consumers. Firms that suffer from harmed reputations become fearful, risk averse, less competitive, and protectionist in nature. As Professor David Henderson, formerly head of the Economics and Statistics Department of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Organization, has said, "insofar as this trend weakens enterprise performance, limits economic freedom and restricts competition, the effect is not only to reduce welfare: it is to deprive private business of its distinctive virtues and rationale".

 

Mr. Kogan is CEO of The Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development, Inc. Mr. Stagnaro is Free Market Environmentalism Director of Istituto Bruno Leoni. "

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=040406F

Entry #235

"Zarqawi 'sacked for mistakes'

"Zarqawi 'sacked for mistakes'

Sunday 02 April 2006, 13:01 Makka Time, 10:01 GMT
Source Aljazeera.net   

Iraq's resistance has replaced Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as political head of the rebels, the son of Osama bin Laden's mentor has said in Jordan.

Hudayf Azzam, 35, who claims close contacts with the fighters, said on Sunday: "The Iraqi resistance's high command asked Zarqawi to give up his political role and replaced him with an Iraqi, because of several mistakes he made. 

"Zarqawi's role has been limited to military action. Zarqawi bowed to the orders two weeks ago and was replaced by  Iraqi national Abdullah bin Rashed al-Baghdadi."
 

Azzam's late father, Abdallah Azzam, was known as the "prince of mujahedeens" and advised bin Laden, the head of al-Qaeda.

Azzam said he regularly receives "credible information on the resistance in Iraq. He said al-Zarqawi had "made many political mistakes", including "the creation of an independent organisation, al-Qaeda in Iraq".

 
"Zarqawi also took the liberty of speaking in the name of the  Iraqi people and resistance, a role which belongs only to the  Iraqis," Azzam said.

 
As a result "the resistance command inside and outside Iraq, including imams, criticised him and after long discussions demanded that he be confined to military action".
 
"Zarqawi pledged not to carry out any more attacks against  Iraq's neighbours after having been criticised for these operations which are considered a violation of sharia [Islamic law]," Azzam said.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/2B8B878B-D862-4056-B677-E600549C2738.htm
Entry #234

"Islamist Challenge to the U.S. Constitution

Blog entry quoted below links to a hugely worthwhile article about a creeping, well funded assault on our Constitution in an attempt to elevate Shari‘a law above both US Constitutional and individual state laws.  Hey it worked in Europe so why not here??

"The Islamist Challenge to the U.S. Constitution

"David Kennedy Houck reveals how serious the challenge to the U.S. Constitution by Muslim groups has already become. From the Middle East Quarterly, [ http://www.meforum.org/article/920 ]with thanks to DFS:

First in Europe and now in the United States, Muslim groups have petitioned to establish enclaves in which they can uphold and enforce greater compliance to Islamic law. While the U.S. Constitution enshrines the right to religious freedom and the prohibition against a state religion, when it comes to the rights of religious enclaves to impose communal rules, the dividing line is more nebulous. Can U.S. enclaves, homeowner associations, and other groups enforce Islamic law?

Such questions are no longer theoretical. While Muslim organizations first established enclaves in Europe,[1] the trend is now crossing the Atlantic. Some Islamist community leaders in the United States are challenging the principles of assimilation and equality once central to the civil rights movement, seeking instead to live according to a separate but equal philosophy. The Gwynnoaks Muslim Residential Development group, for example, has established an informal enclave in Baltimore because, according to John Yahya Cason, director of the Islamic Education and Community Development Initiative, a Baltimore-based Muslim advocacy group, "there was no community in the U.S. that showed the totality of the essential components of Muslim social, economic, and political structure."[2]

Baltimore is not alone. In August 2004, a local planning commission in Little Rock, Arkansas, granted The Islamic Center for Human Excellence authorization to build an internal Islamic enclave to include a mosque, a school, and twenty-two homes.[3] While the imam, Aquil Hamidullah, says his goal is to create "a clean community, free of alcohol, drugs, and free of gangs,"[4] the implications for U.S. jurisprudence of this and other internal enclaves are greater: while the Little Rock enclave might prevent the sale of alcohol, can it punish possession and in what manner? Can it force all women, be they residents or visitors, to don Islamic hijab (headscarf)? Such enclaves raise the fundamental questions of when, how, and to what extent religious practice may supersede the U.S. Constitution.

Don't fail to read it all.

Entry #233

Todd, this one's for you!!

Found the link on Powerlineblog.com .... their take on the video in quotation marks below.  Big Grin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o762HKxYMeA&eurl=
"Introducing The Right Brothers

 

Ladies and gentlemen, we proudly bring to you "Bush was Right" by The Right Brothers. A beat you can dance to, lyrics shot through with optimism, a killer hook...and a brilliant middle eight: "Ted Kennedy -- wrong, Cindy Sheehan -- wrong, France -- wrong, Zell Miller -- right!"

The song condenses the theme of Hugh Hewitt's Painting the Map Red into a wild three-minute ride. Joe Malchow comments: "Whether you agree with the causal argument, these guys are stunningly informed about recent world events." Don't miss it! (Courtesy of Dartblog.)

Posted by Scott at 12:52 PM "
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013627.php
Entry #232

"Mexico's Weapon

There will be many proposals for border security before the dust settles on what will be signed into law.

This morning I head an interview with Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia about his proposal to use drones all along the border, with immigration enforcement picking illegals up.  He said that it is a more practical approach than (metaphorically) a 20' fence where someone will come along with a 21' ladder.  He also proposes utilizing tunnel locating technology currently being employed with great success in Iraq.  Enforcement manpower is going to have to be stepped up too, but technology will reduce the numbers needed as opposed to manning every single inch of the border with bodies. 

Whether his proposal is accepted or not his thrust is to secure the border first where no one can come in, no one can leave so the ones effectively "trapped" here will be far more willing to comply with whatever documentation plan we come up with.  He also indicated that they would have to leave and re-enter to fully comply with his proposal.  Interesting and we'll see who else comes up with what.

The article posted refers to "fifth column" so looked it up on Wilkipedia for anyone not fully knowing what the term means, me included.  Unhappy  Bold emphasis added by me.

Fifth column

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A fifth column is a group of people which clandestinely undermines a larger group to which it is expected to be loyal, such as a nation. The term originated with a 1936 radio address by Emilio Mola, a Nationalist general during the 1936-39 Spanish Civil War. As four of his army columns moved on Madrid, the general referred to his militant supporters within the capital as his "fifth column," intent on undermining the Republican government from within.

The term is also used in reference to a population who are assumed to have loyalties to countries other than the one in which they reside, or who support some other nation in war efforts against the country they live in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_column

"Mexico's Weapon
By William R. Hawkins
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 31, 2006

"Prominent on display at demonstrations around the country supporting illegal immigration has been the flag of Mexico. The last time demonstrators waved the flag of a foreign government in American streets on such a scale was during the Vietnam War when New Leftists were championing the cause of North Vietnam against the United States. Those street people were mainly mush-brained college students whose ignorance of world affairs allowed them to be manipulated by their Marxist professors. This time is different. The protesters are not just advocating a foreign cause, they are part of it. Most of the Latino students boycotting classes in California and elsewhere should not be in those classes to begin with, since they have no legal right to even be in the United States. Indeed, their enrollment has generated a financial drain on state and local budgets across the country.

When the demonstrations started, I was in England. Media coverage there combined the marches in the U.S. with the student protests in France over labor reform. Again, the symbolism harkened back to the chaos of May 1968 when student and labor union violence almost collapsed the government of Charles DeGaulle. Aging radicals on both sides of the Atlantic wish to recapture the dark chaos of the 1960s.

The United Kingdom has its own illegal immigration problems. On March 25, a Chinese gang leader was found guilty of the manslaughter of 21 Chinese illegal immigrants who drowned in Morecambe Bay two years ago while harvesting shellfish at night. I watched with a mixture of amusement and outrage as a self-styled spokesman for the Chinese community claimed that the British Home Secretary should have been the one indicted because immigration laws "forced" illegals to work under hazardous condition because they cannot work in the open. A dapper British businessman then argued for dropping the term "illegal" in favor of "economic immigrant" so that firms could have a ready supply of cheap labor.

These arguments are heard here too. But what may be "cheap" for a company can be very expensive for the larger society. Some 40 percent of the inmates in California prisons are illegal aliens, who saw America as the land of opportunity for criminal pursuits. Our de facto "open borders" policy cannot discriminate between those whose ambitions are honest or dishonest. And no new system can solve this problem if it is still possible to get into America and survive outside the parameters of the law. Truly effective border security is the pre-requisite for any system of legal immigration.

It is the prevention of border security that motivates both the street protests and the Mexican government which is helping to orchestrate them. The timing of the protests is not just connected with legislation in the U.S. Congress, whose deliberations are long and convoluted. The more direct link is to the summit between President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vincente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Cancun March 30-31. Mr. Fox has activated his fifth column in America as a diplomatic weapon. He has been aided by a network of Spanish-language radio stations and newspapers, elements in the Catholic Church and the usual variety of left-wing "civil rights" groups like the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU. This movement poses a threat to U.S. security and sovereignty that makes even the risk of terrorist infiltration across the southern border pale in significance.

Mexican Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez said March 27 that border security could not be the only topic at Cancun. He said all "must share responsibility so that those forced to migrate be regulated by plans that include respecting their dignity." But what has "forced" Mexicans to become illegal immigrants? The answer is the sad fact that Mexico has become a failed state, which hopes to push costs onto its northern neighbor so its corrupt elites can continue in power without having to risk domestic reform.

In a series of newspaper ads in U.S. papers, the Mexican government claimed it could do more to control its side of the border, but would only do so if the U.S. adopts "a far-reaching guest workers scheme" and that "Mexico should participate in its design, management, supervision and evaluation." In other words, Mexico wants a role in writing American laws for its benefit, and will use the pressure of mass migration and fifth column political warfare to pressure Washington into accepting its demands.

The proper response is to tell Mexico that if it is purposely refusing to act as a responsible neighbor along the border, then it will be held accountable for its actions and sanctions will be imposed. In the aftermath of 9/11, the Bush administration declared in its 2002 National Security Strategy a policy of "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities." This is particularly applicable to Mexico, as it is a restatement of the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine as applied to Latin America. "'Chronic wrong doing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation" is how Teddy Roosevelt put it. The Fox regime cannot be allowed to intervene in the U.S. political process or send its agents into American streets with impunity. 

At a March 27 naturalization ceremony for new American citizens who attained their coveted status through the lawful process, President Bush said "The first element is securing our border. Our immigration system cannot function if we cannot control the border. Illegal immigration puts a strain on law enforcement and public resources, especially in our border communities. Our nation is also fighting a war on terror, and terrorists crossing the border could create destruction on a massive scale. The responsibility of government is clear: We must enforce the border." It remains to be seen if he adheres to this position at the Cancun summit."

 

Entry #231

"Hezbollah Busted in Mexican Smuggling Operati

"FBI's Mueller: Hezbollah Busted in Mexican Smuggling Operation

NewsMax.com
Thursday, March 30, 2006 10:27 p.m. EST

"FBI Director Robert Mueller said this week that his agency busted a smuggling ring organized by the terrorist group Hezbollah that had operatives cross the Mexican border to carry out possible terrorist attacks inside the U.S.

"This was an occasion in which Hezbollah operatives were assisting others with some association with Hezbollah in coming to the United States,” Mueller told a House Appropriations subcommittee during a Tuesday hearing on the FBI's budget.

In a stunning revelation, Mueller admitted that Hezbollah had succeeded in smuggling some of its operatives across the border, telling the House committee: "That was an organization that we dismantled and identified those persons who had been smuggled in. And they have been addressed as well.”

Hezbollah was responsible for the single most deadly terrorist attack against the U.S. before 9/11 - the Oct. 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, which killed 243 U.S. troops.

In November, an al-Qaida operative who was on the FBI's terrorist watch list was captured near the Mexican border, housed in a Texas jail and turned over to federal agents, according to Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas.

"A confirmed al-Qaida terrorist, an Iraqi national, was held in the Brewster County jail," Rep. Culberson told ABC Radio host Sean Hannity. "He was captured in Mexico. This was within the last six weeks. He was turned over to the FBI."

 http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/FBIs%20Mueller%20Hezbollah%20Busted.html

Entry #230

"Techs lead Nasdaq to 5-year high

"If the economy is as strong as the Fed is worried about, that's going to mean better corporate earnings," ..........

 

"Techs lead Nasdaq to 5-year high

Mar 29, 2006 — By Jennifer Coogan

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. stocks rallied on Wednesday, led by sharp gains in the Nasdaq Composite to its highest since February 2001, after positive comments by a brokerage about wireless technology makers, including Qualcomm Inc. <QCOM.O>

The blue-chip Dow industrials got a lift from Boeing Co. <BA.N>, which received a $2 billion jet order, and from a brokerage upgrade of manufacturer 3M Co. <MMM.N>.

Stocks fell on Tuesday after the Federal Reserve lifted the benchmark fed funds rate and hinted that more rate increases may be needed to stem inflation.

"If the economy is as strong as the Fed is worried about, that's going to mean better corporate earnings," said John Augustine, chief investment strategist at Fifth Third Asset Management. "The driver is rotating from front-end consumer to back-end business spending. And business spending is being driven by the need to continually improve productivity, which brings in tech spending."  .............

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=1782412

Entry #229

"Room But for One Flag

First link shows quite a stretch on freedom of speech.  Shifty  Don't let the door hit 'em on the way out ........

 

http://www.stevequayle.com/News.alert/06_Photo_of_Day/060329.photo.of.day.html

"Room But for One Flag


March 30, 2006
The Washington Times

In 1907, during one of the great immigration waves, President Teddy Roosevelt said that the immigrant who comes here "in good faith ... shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin." However, he added, "We have room but for one flag, the American flag."

Words well worth recalling as we noticed what student protesters decided to hoist up their high school flagpole while ostensibly demonstrating against immigration reform. In Spanish this is called reconquista, the reconquering of Mexican land lost during the Mexican-American war (1846-48), and its appearance in Los Angeles this week adds a dark dimension to the entire immigration debate.

In contrast to Mexican immigrants, those who emigrated to America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries came mostly from countries -- Ireland, Poland, Italy, Bohemia, Germany and Greece -- that had little if any significant historical dealings with the United States. Nearly all had never had colonial possessions in America, nor had lost territory on the continent in war. Their citizens emigrated because they were inspired by hopes for a new and better life, not redress for past indignities. In time they became Americans.

Something entirely different motivates the Hispanic radicals. Their inspiration is anti-Americanism, which they cheerfully articulate in banners proclaiming "This is our continent, not yours!" They claim citizenship, or at least the benefits of citizenship, to be theirs by right, rather than something to be earned. And their ultimate fantasy is no different than the radical Muslim immigrants living in the slums outside Paris: To retake what they think was formerly their ancestors' land, if not in name then in numbers. Tragically, they are able to dupe idealistic students into advancing their cause by masking their true intentions behind the facade of ethnic pride or civil rights. Nothing is more un-American, especially for those requesting American citizenship.

We acknowledge that a majority of protesters gathering in Los Angeles and San Diego this week do not believe in the reconquista agenda. Their disagreement is with Congress, not America. But by accepting radicals into their ranks, by allowing students to desecrate the American flag, they have given tacit approval of the reconquista message. If the leaders of the Latino community wish to bring public opinion to their side, they must condemn these verbal and symbolic calls for reconquest. "

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060329-084824-8472r.htm

http://www.stevequayle.com/News.alert/06_Global/060330.one.flag.html?ARTICLE_ID=49482

Entry #228

...Makes sense to me ....

Hillary advocates amnesty while salivating at the thought of all those votes for her presidential run in '08.

Arnie says amnesty is anarchy.  Arnie's correct that we're a nation of law for without law we have no structure or framework in which to safely, freely live in an orderly society that's the envy of the world.  Were it not why are illegals streaming across the border to get here???????????????

Knowing Hillary and her modus operandi, Dick Morris seems to be proposing a logical solution to the issue which meets needs of the majority, especially economically which was brought to my attention by both a very astute LP member and my hubby. 

Without a free, sound, robust economy we have no nation ..... so economic interests absolutely must take precedence.

"My Immigration Advice to the GOP
By Dick Morris
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 30, 2006

"The immigration bill pending in Congress poses as crucial a test for GOP efforts to reach out to Hispanic voters as the 1964 Civil Rights Act did in determining the future partisan preferences of America’s African-Americans.

In 1964, the Republican Party, led by Barry Goldwater, was painted as sacrificing the interests of civil rights to its goal of attracting Southern support, although Republicans backed the bill in far greater numbers than Democrats did. But when Goldwater ran for president rejecting civil rights legislation, it doomed GOP chances among black voters for at least the next 40 years.

Will the Republican need to appease its anti-immigration base similarly vitiate President Bush’s efforts to appeal to Hispanic voters?

Hispanics, let’s remember, were the swing voter group in 2004. Having voted for Al Gore by 30 points in 2000, they sufficiently trusted Bush to back Sen. John Kerry by only an eight-point margin. If the Republican Party now turns its back on these newly swing Latino voters, it may permanently lose its ability to win America’s fastest-growing voter group, perhaps dooming the party altogether.

But the demands of the GOP base must also be accommodated. Here’s how:

One must separately consider the three key elements of immigration reform under discussion: The border fence, the guest-worker program and the criminalization of illegal aliens and those who employ them.

The GOP base wants a fence. It is vital to the entire concept of whether or not we can control our borders. All efforts to beef up manpower on the border have failed to stem the daily flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico. A fence is the only way to do it. By backing a fence and demonstrably taking control of our southern border, the Republican Party will appease the demands of its base.

But to prevent disaster among Latino voters, it must accompany the fence with a more liberal policy on guest workers and criminalization. 

Simply put, the fence must have a gate that swings open for immigrants we want and need. To avoid permanently antagonizing our southern neighbors and to keep the labor supply on which so much of American business and prosperity depend, we need a guest-worker program.

The GOP base, happy with the fence, will probably go along with it. Whatever the Congress needs to do to differentiate the guest-worker program from amnesty it should do, but it must pass a generous guest-worker program. (If it is necessary for those here illegally to return to Mexico and reenter as registered and enrolled guest workers, to convince the right that a guest-worker program is not amnesty, so be it).

With a 4.7 percent unemployment rate, we will be slitting our own throats by denying our economy access to Mexican workers. We just need to make them legal, not illegal. With a border fence to enforce the difference, a guest-worker program will work politically.

And it is also important for the Republicans to avoid symbolic acts like making it a felony to be here illegally or to employ someone who is. The same practical deterrence is quite possible through the fence, and merely upgrading the jail time from a misdemeanor to a felony won’t make much practical difference.

Judges, in any event, are not about to crowd our jails with millions of felony illegal entrants. Deportation is and will be the answer to those we catch — and deportation has new meaning with a fence in place.

Yes to the fence, yes to guest workers and no to greater criminalization are the keys to giving the Republican Party access to Latino votes in the future while coping with an issue that roils tens of millions of Americans. "

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21842 

 
Entry #227

"Latinos: It's way overdue

Found this posted on another site. 

Now for the flip side of the mindset ............

"Latinos: It's way overdue

By Rodolfo F. Acuña

I am the first one to criticize Chicano/Latino politicos when they don't defend the interests of the community. However, during the present crisis, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and most Latino elected officials in Los Angeles have acted in a principled manner, forcefully speaking out against the racist nativism that is gripping the country. The same can be said of the Catholic Church and its refusal to go along with the hysteria.

If the actions of right-wing radio hosts, virulent anti-immigrant groups, and opportunistic politicos were an aberration, there would be hope that people would come to their senses. However, this form of nativism has infected the United States since the birth of the Republic.

It led to the persecution of Irish immigrants; the burning of a convent in Charleston, Mass., in 1828; the burning of Catholic churches in Philadelphia in 1842; and fueled the illegal invasion of Mexico and the theft of 50 percent of its land. This was topped off with the creation of the Native American party of the 1850s, which became known as the Know Nothing Party, and later the Republican Party.

Every time that the nation had an economic depression or recession, the Greek Chorus pointed at the immigrant. Thus the Chinese were excluded in 1882, and in the 1920s immigration acts made national origins the basis of admission. The expressed intent of these laws was to keep America white by giving preferences to northern Europeans, who, the politicos said, were blonder, taller and had bigger brains.

In 1965, the nation went through an examination of conscience and passed an amendment to the immigration act based on family preferences. The result was that too many Asians came in and Latin Americans continued to migrate to this country.

Shortly after the passage of the 1965 amendments, politicians such as Sen. Alan Simpson, R-Wyoming, and ex-California Gov. Pete Wilson built careers on baiting Mexican immigrants. They criminalized them, calling them illegal and dehumanized them, calling them aliens.

With the advent of the right-wing think tanks and the Internet, immigrant-bashing became an industry. Playing on the fears of white Americans who have historically been narcissistic and consumed by angst, these groups have made millions by creating a living hell for people who just want what others want a place to live in peace and educate their children.

For too long the Mexican/Latino community has been silent. This has encouraged bullies and wannabe brownshirts to come out of

 
  
 
the woodwork and prance around like Minutemen. Most of these patriots like the president and vice president of this country have never served in the military. Immigrants were welcome as long as they did the fighting for them.

Samuel Johnson in 1775 said that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. History will bear out his wisdom.

Aside from the mendaciousness of the nativist, their stupidity is mind-blowing. The United States has been criminally negligent when it comes to Latin America. Its drug market has converted many Latin Americans into suppliers of American demand for drugs. As a result, the governments of these countries have morally decayed. The U.S.' green revolutions have destroyed agricultural subsistence, and the North American Free Trade Agreement has destroyed nascent manufacturing industries.

Today, the only thing that is sustaining Mexico and Central America is the remittances sent back annually by hard-working compatriots. If it were not for these remittances, those economies would crash and there would be many more immigrant workers coming into territory that was illegally taken from their ancestors. They are illegal because the border was moved.

The demonstrators had no choice but to protest. I have no other choice but to urge my students and community to resist immoral laws.

As a historian, I remember the words of Martin Niem ller, a Protestant pastor and social activist:

When the Nazis arrested the Communists,

I said nothing; after all, I was not a Communist.

When they locked up the Social Democrats,

I said nothing; after all, I was not a Social Democrat.

When they arrested the trade unionists,

I said nothing; after all, I was not a trade unionist.

When they arrested the Jews, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Jew.

When they arrested me, there was no longer anyone who could protest.

Rodolfo F. Acñu a is professor of Chicana/o Studies at California State University, Northridge. " 

http://www.dailynews.com/theiropinion/ci_3649040

Entry #226

Sen. Frist on Immigration

Sincere thanks to all who read my blog entries.  Big Grin Angel

Just came in email ....... live embedded links.

Today the Senate will begin debate on my Secure America's Borders Act (SABA) bill and tomorrow the first amendment offered will be the bill approved by the Judiciary Committee on Monday night.

In the coming days we will debate the merits of each. This debate will give Americans the opportunity to hear all sides of this important issue.

I believe this is an important debate for us to have, and equally important for us to act. For too long this problem has gone unaddressed and is now threatening our national and economic security.

As we enter into this debate, let me be clear with you where I stand:

We are a nation of immigrants built upon the rule of law. And so many legal immigrants have played by the rules when coming to this country and making a life for themselves and their families. We should not break faith with those who played by the rules, so I will not support amnesty. We respect the rule of law and those who made it here the right way, and are trying to make it here the right way, rather than reward those who came here the wrong way.

America needs to secure her borders and we need real interior enforcement. Which is why the bill I introduced prioritizes both as well as increases legal immigration, and in doing each, honors our heritage as a nation of immigrants who value the rule of law.

I am pleased that the Judiciary committee bill has strong border enforcement mechanisms - the inclusion of those in this bill is a big step in the right direction.

But we have much more work to do. The Senate will take the remainder of this week and next to complete that work.

During the course of the upcoming debate, there will be many amendments offered. Some of these amendments will be constructive and will bring us closer to comprehensive immigration reform. However some of these amendments will propose amnesty, weaken border security measures and strip away interior enforcement provisions. These we must oppose.

Our nation is one founded on the rule of law by generations upon generations of immigrants. We should not have to choose between these founding principles.

In the end it is my hope that we have a bill which has strong enforcement mechanisms and that addresses the humanitarian and economic crisis we are now facing.

I also encourage you to leave a comment on my blog and make your voice heard. To do so, please click here.

Bill Frist, M.D.

VOLPAC
Post Office Box 158552
Nashville, TN 37215
Office: (615) 386-0045 

Entry #225
Page 572 of 587
Guest