Thursday, May 17, 2007


National Review has amazing news from Capitol Hill. Yesterday House Democrats unveiled a plan to rewrite the House rules so that Congress can increase taxes and government spending without having to vote. The House voting rules on tax increases have been in place for 185 years, and little 'ole Nancy and her party want to yank the rug right under all that history. And why? What are Democrats so eager to spend money on, if not on national defense (as they refuse to fund the troops in Iraq)? And who do they want to raise taxes on? Well that would be the rich, because after all they have no right to keep the money that they rightfully earned...

We're going to get into this with Jamie Dupree on the show today ... We'll need his help. Over the years congress has intentionally made so many of their rules vague to the point that the average person really can't understand what's going on up there.

The power of the purse is perhaps the most sacred power that Congress has, and Democrats are going to completely betray that trust by allowing money to be tossed around with absolutely no accountability. At a time when everyone (Democrats and Republicans) is fed up with ridiculous spending in Washington, this is exactly what our country does not need. Thanks but no thanks Democrats. You have demonstrated a hypocritical lack of sense and leadership time and time again, and you sure as hell will not be using any of my tax dollars without a proper vote!


scroll for updates


With friends like the Senate Republicans, who needs enemies?

I'll have much more to say and report. For now:

See, I told you so.


If it quacks like amnesty...

Here's the bill: S. 1348. Detailed textual analysis coming.

Meantime, Numbers USA reports:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) delayed until May 21 the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 1348, immigration legislation very similar to last year's Senate-passed amnesty bill (S. 2611). The vote was delayed to buy Senators more time to negotiate a "compromise" bill and draft its language.

Frosty Wooldridge writes:

The Senators listed below are key to stopping Reid and Amnesty legislation. They voted in 2006 to bring the illegal alien amnesty bill to a floor vote so they could play "moderate" on the record with a "yes" vote for "inclusion". Then they covered themselves with the Republican base and tried to recover their "anti-amnesty" image by voting NO on passage of the bill, well aware that the legislation would fail and that their NO vote was just political tail-covering...

Lamar Alexander (R-TN), up for 2008 re-election
Thad Cochran (R-MS), up for 2008 re-election
John Cornyn (R-TX), up for 2008 re-election
Orrin Hatch (R-UT), was up for 2006 re-election
Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX), was up for 2006 re-election
Jon Kyl (R-AZ), was up for 2006 re-election
Trent Lott (R-MS) was up for 2006 re-election
Ben Nelson (D-NE) was up for 2006 re-election
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), was up for 2006 re-election
Craig Thomas (R-WY), was up for 2006 re-election
Ken Salazar (D-CO)
Senator Murkowski
Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)
Senator McConnell
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) Hammer him to get a clue on adding 100 million people
Ted Kennedy (D-MA) call him to give him a piece of your mind
Arlen Spector (R-PA) mostly out of touch with reality, but call anyway
Senator Lindsey Graham (SC) He thinks Americans are bigots
Senator Mel Martinez (FL)
House Rep Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Give her a piece of your mind on amnesty

Direct numbers to specific offices:

Senator Jon Kyl 202-224-4521
Senator Lindsey Graham 202-224-5972
Senator Harry Reid 202-224-3542
Senator McConnell 202-224-2541
Senator Ted Kennedy 202-224-4543
Senator Arlen Specter 202-224-4254

Kate O'Beirne:

The political calculation by conservative senators appears to be that the White House was going to cut a deal with Ted Kennedy with or without them and moderate senators would provide enough votes to pass any such bill. In the absence of vociferous opposition by conservatives, only about a dozen or so GOP senators are likely to oppose the grand "comprehensive" compromise.

My previous optimism about the Senate's inability to come up with a consensus plan that could win broad bipartisan approval obviously underestimated Republican senators' capacity for self-delusion.

I repeat:

There have been seven illegal alien amnesties passed into law since 1986:

·The 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act blanket amnesty for an estimated 2.7 million illegal aliens

·1994: The "Section 245(i)" temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens

·1997: Extension of the Section 245(i) amnesty

·1997: The Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act for nearly one million illegal aliens from Central America

·1998: The Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti

·2000: Extension of amnesty for some 400,000 illegal aliens who claimed eligibility under the 1986 act

·2000: The Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, which included a restoration of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty for 900,000 illegal aliens]

Guess what? None –not one—of those amnesties was associated with a decline in illegal immigration. On the contrary, the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. has tripled since President Reagan signed the first amnesty in 1986. The total effect of the amnesties was even larger because relatives later joined amnesty recipients, and this number was multiplied by an unknown number of children born to amnesty recipients who then acquired automatic US citizenship.

And as I've noted before, there is no such thing as a "temporary" amnesty.

Flashback: Guest worker amnesty--the horrific implementation problems

Update: Chris Kelly dissects the GOP talking points on their immigration bill capitulation.

Update: I'm shocked, shocked....via WashTimes...

The Bush administration, trying to win an immigration agreement with Democrats, is backing away from safeguards designed to target businesses that hire illegal aliens and to prevent a repeat of the rampant fraud that resulted from the 1986 amnesty.

Republicans are pleading with the Bush administration to hold firm on the safeguards, arguing that otherwise any new guest-worker program will be unworkable.

"We need their help on that," said Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, who for two years has fought to give the Department of Homeland Security new tools to limit lawsuits, share information with the Social Security Administration and allow authorities to target those whose applications are denied and who should be deported.