SHAMNESTY ALERT!!!!!!

Shamnesty alert: Dems prepare to ram DREAM Act through with cloture vote; Update: Where do your Senators stand?

By Michelle Malkin • October 23, 2007

Update 7:30pm Eastern. I’m bumping this post to the Lead Story slot and will keep it here through tomorrow’s cloture vote. Where do your Senators stand? Let me know what responses you get. If Republicans had brains, they would put attrition through enforcement first and Just Say No to any new illegal alien magnets.

Noam Askew has a list of possible fence-sitters. You’ll notice a lot of open-borders Republicans on that list.

Sen. Cornyn (R-Texas) sent his statement this evening. Kind of wishy-washy, but at least he comes down on the right side:

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement this evening regarding his intention to vote tomorrow against the motion to proceed to the DREAM Act (S. 2205), which was introduced by U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

“As I have long said, I have a great deal of sympathy for the plight of children who have no moral culpability for being in this country illegally. Congress should continue seeking reasonable and responsible ways they can complete their education and achieve opportunity.

“Unfortunately, the Durbin bill contains a number of gaping loopholes, while failing to address the much larger need for comprehensive immigration reform and the immediate crisis at our borders. For example, it contains no firm requirement for the illegal immigrant to graduate with a degree from an accredited U.S. institution of Higher Education (either a two or four-year institution), it grants them broad access to federal student loans at a time when we are struggling to meet loan needs for our own citizens, and it extends the benefits to adults, rather than focusing on children. Moreover, from a law enforcement perspective, his bill does nothing to prevent fraud, allows certain criminal aliens to qualify for legal status, and ties the hands of law enforcement by severely limiting their access to application information.

“If my colleagues who support this measure are committed to solving America’s immigration crisis and the plight of illegal immigrants, then the focus of this Congress should be on passing a comprehensive reform bill that addresses all of our pressing immigration matters, including securing our broken borders and the needs of American businesses for more workers.”

Here are the others targeted by the DREAM-pushers:

Hutchison, Kay Bailey- (R - TX) (202) 224-5922
Thad Cochran (202) 224- 5054
Norm Coleman(202) 224-5641
John Sununu (202) 224-2841
Olympia Snowe (202) 224-5344
Jon Tester (202) 224-2644
Richard Burr (202) 224-3154
John Warner (202) 224-2023
Lindsey Graham (202) 224-5972
Judd Gregg (202) 224-3324
Chuck Grassley (202) 224-3744
Tim Johnson (202) 224-5842
Robert Byrd (202) 224-3954
Byron Dorgan (202) 224-2551
Pete Domenici (202) 224-6621
Max Baucus (202) 224-2651
Larry Craig (202) 224-2752
Ted Stevens (202) 224-3004
George Voinovich (202) 224-3353
Lisa Murkowski (202) 224-6665
Claire McCaskill (202) 224-6154
Benjamin Nelson (202) 224-6551
John Barrasso (202) - 224-6441
Susan Collins (202) 224-2523
Crapo (202) 224-6142
Bennet (202) 224-5444
Martinez (202) 224-3041
Sen Brownback, Sam [KS] - (202) 224-6521
Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA] - (202) 224-5824
Sen Ensign (202) 224-6244

***

I’ve been keeping you up to date with the latest on the Dems’ attempt (with help from open borders Republicans) to ram the DREAM Act through the Senate. It now looks like a cloture vote is set for tomorrow. Numbers USA reports: “Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) filed to invoke cloture on S. 2205, Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin’s (D-Ill.) new stand-alone DREAM Act amnesty bill. The cloture vote, for which 60 YES votes are necessary to prevent a filibuster on the measure, is set for Wednesday, October 24. Reid is attempting to bring this nightmarish amnesty bill to the floor under Senate Rule XIV without it ever having been debated in committee.”

This morning, I received the following e-mail circulated today by Sen. Durbin’s Judiciary staff:

From: Dodin, Reema (Judiciary-Dem)
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 9:36 AM
To: All Judiciary Users
Subject: Briefing on the DREAM Act: TODAY at 3pm in SC-6

Durbin-Hagel-Lugar DREAM Act Briefing: Tuesday, October 23rd at 3PM in SC-6

Senators Durbin, Hagel and Lugar invite you to a staff briefing on S. 2205, the DREAM Act. A cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the DREAM Act will take place this Wednesday morning (tomorrow). The briefing is scheduled for Tuesday, October 23, in SC-6 of the U.S. Capitol.

The DREAM Act would make it possible for certain long-term undocumented immigrant children to go to college or join the military if they meet stringent requirements. It does not address the status of their parents, but simply allows children-who had no choice in the decision to come here-the opportunity to continue their education and give back to the country that they call home.

This bipartisan legislation has passed the Senate Judiciary Committee three times in various forms, and was approved by the Senate last year as part of the comprehensive immigration bill, S. 2611.

The briefing will feature presentations by:

Several students who would benefit from the DREAM Act; Angela Kelley, Director, Immigration Policy Center; Melissa Lazarin, Director of Education Policy, First Focus; Alfred Campos, Federal Lobbyist, National Education Association; Stephanie Grosser, Outreach & Program Coordinator, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society; and Kevin Appleby, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

This event is for Congressional staff only (no press). For more information, please contact Reema in Sen. Durbin’s office at 4-1158.

For more on the DREAM Act, please see the new report from the Immigration Policy Center.

Hope to see you there!

They’ve moved from health care kiddie human shields to illegal alien youth human shields.

The Democrat Party: It’s the Party That Won’t Grow Up.

Won't You Take Me to Chinatown?

By Michelle Malkin

The Los Angeles Times digs into Hillary’s finances and uncovers more mysterious Chinatown donors with dilapidated addresses in NYC and jobs unlikely to put them in the position of maxing out campaign contributions. They include dishwashers, waiters, contributors who deny making contributions, and another who “admitted to lacking the legal-resident status required for giving campaign money.” And more:

Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton’s campaign treasury. In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000. When Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) ran for president in 2004, he received $24,000 from Chinatown…

…Of 74 residents of New York’s Chinatown, Flushing, the Bronx or Brooklyn that The Times called or visited, only 24 could be reached for comment.

Will Hillary accuse the Times reporters of “stalking” now?

I like the use of the adjective “ephemeral:”

Like many who traveled this path, most of the Chinese reported as contributing to Clinton’s campaign have never voted. Many speak little or no English. Some seem to lead such ephemeral lives that neighbors say they’ve never heard of them.

Predictions: Hillary will come out swinging at the Times, her Asian-American acolytes will accuse the paper of racism and ethnic bigotry, and those “ephemeral” donors will never be found.

***

Hey, I just remembered something. Remember the story I blogged this summer about Chinese-language ballots in Boston? One Chinese translation of Hillary Clinton’s name:

“Upset Stomach.”

Most fitting today, I imagine.

***

Allah dubs it “Hsu II.”

And once again, the question looms:

Where is the money coming from?

***

Flip Pidot takes note of the rise of the bundler and takes a close look at Hill’s 3Q refunds. Methinks more of those will be on the way.

FORTNEY STARK.....CLEARLY A MADMAN

Did you hear what this august member of the MoveOn Democrat Party had to say on the floor of the House of Representatives yesterday? His name is Fortney "Pete" Stark, and he's the congressman representing (this time) California's 13th district.

First ... maybe a little review. Pete Stark seems to have a history of saying outrageous things about other public figures.

• He called Health and Human Services Secretary Louis Sullivan a "disgrace to his race."
• He called a fellow congressman a "little wimp" and a "fruitcake."
• He once made a reference to Congressman J.C. Watts as being "born out of wedlock."
• He called former Congresswoman Nancy Johnson, a Republican, a "whore for the insurance industry," saying that here knowledge of health care came from "pillow talk."
• Called the director of the California state welfare program a "baby killer."

According to Wikipedia (link above) The San Francisco Chronicle once editorialized: "Only a politician who assumes he has a job for life could behave so badly on a semi-regular basis by spewing personalized invective that might get him punched in certain East Bay taverns ... Surely there must be someone along the shoreline between Alameda and Fremont who could represent the good citizens of the district with class and dignity. It's not the case now."

So .. now that you have a little background, here's what Stark had to say about George Bush yesterday. The comment was made in reference to Bush's veto of the MoveOn Democrat's attempt to vastly expand the S-CHIP program for children's health care:

"Republicans sure don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war on children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if he can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement."

Click here to catch Stark's little tantrum. Republicans are spinning around on their eyebrows demanding an apology from Stark. They should save their breath. Wrong tactic. Enough of this apology nonsense. Just let Stark's statement stand on its own ... and use it to show the deep, seething hatred that so many Democrats have toward George Bush ... a hatred so intense that they're willing to sabotage the efforts or our men and women fighting the Islamic radical menace.

FIGHTING GLOBAL WARMING....AND POVERTY

The new secretary general of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon told 80 heads of state that global warming threatens our goals of eliminating widespread global poverty.

Global warming is going to add stress to the poorest regions of the world and will make it difficult for these societies to pursue sustainable livelihoods, according to Ban Ki-moon. The agricultural production in places like Africa is going to be severely compromised.

But of course, the rich nations of the US should provide "humanitarian assistance across the globe." He says that "increased resources" will be necessary to adapt the world for climate change ... basically, he wants more money. Rather than providing emergency assistance when catastrophes occur, we should be providing solutions (and money) now, in order to save poor nations from the perils of climate change!

The cost is "very modest" according to the climate change panel. If we do not implement these measures, then – brace yourself – "the income and wealth disparities between nations will increase." And the existence of poverty, which should be "ethically unacceptable," could pose a threat to global security.

Horse squeeze.

First of all .. any measurable warming of the earth stopped about ten years ago. And even then we're only talking about one degree over the last century. OwlGore has his Peace Prize ... so enough already. It's time to get off this phony global warming crap and put some real science into the picture. I'm so sick and tired of hearing these cultists yammer about "2600 scientists" who have bought into this fad, then to realize that a good portion of these scientists are podiatrists, electrical engineers and experts on macro economics.

Can anyone out there tell me what the ideal temperature for the earth would be? Come on! I'm waiting.

Consider this scenario: The earth heats up. As the earth heats up more water evaporates from the surfaces of the earth's lakes and oceans. The atmosphere thus becomes even more saturated with water and rainfall increases. As rainfall increases the arid portions of the earth that were not suitable for farming suddenly become rich with crops. Not only that, but areas that were once frozen throughout the summer can now be planted in crops for a short growing season. Result? More food. OK, now tell me why this wouldn't be the real scenario ... if, that is, we actually experienced this global warming.

Bottom line .. global warming is being touted as an excuse by Bang My Gong, or whatever his name is, for a program of worldwide wealth redistribution. I'm not really in love with the idea.

STILL MORE FROM THE LEFT COAST

Another story from San Francisco. A federal judge has given in to labor and civil liberties organizations. The judge is temporarily blocking the U.S. government from cracking down on businesses employing illegal immigrants.

The Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security had a plan to send joint letter to businesses that have workers with Social Security numbers that don't match their names. The businesses would face penalties if it was shown that they were hiring illegal aliens.

These "No Match" letters were supposed to be sent starting in September until labor groups and immigrant activists filed a lawsuit. They claim that this policy puts a burden on employers and may cause "authorized immigrants" and U.S. citizens to lose their jobs over simple mistakes on their paper work. Activists say that this would be a violation of their rights!

I'm sorry but that is BS. That is NOT why these people are opposing this plan. "The legal citizens may lose their jobs if they incorrectly filled out their paperwork." If they made a mistake ... if they transposed a digit in their Social Security number ... they get every opportunity to correct it. . But these activists are hiding behind this pitiful argument in order to ensure that their fellow illegals don't lose their jobs. Or in this case, aren't even questioned. As for the unions ... you can figure that one out for yourself. They're looking for new members. Especially since more and more American workers are figuring out that unions do more harm than good.

LAMESTREAM COVERAGE OF HILLARY

Yesterday we broke the news to you that Hillary had placed a nifty new advisor on her campaign staffer. None other than Sandy Berger. Berger was Hillary's "husband's" National Security Advisor. Before the 9-11 Commission started conducting hearings Berger marched his loyal self over to the National Archives and proceeded to steal classified documents relating to Clinton's treatment of Osama bin Laden and Islamic terrorism during his eight years in the White House. To this day nobody really knows the totality of what Berger stole. We can only assume that the material was damaging to Clinton.

There's another element here I haven't yet explored .. and that is the WHY? Was Berger acting to protect himself, or someone else. Did someone ask, beg or instruct him to retrieve those documents? If so, whom? Someone with an eye to future power? Someone with a promise of a future position of power?

Well, as of late yesterday afternoon – that's more 12 hours after the news broke – where was the mainstream media coverage of Sandy Berger advising Hillary Clinton? New York Times. Nothing. Washington Times. Nothing. CNN. Nothing. LATimes. Nothing. Ditto for the Washington Post. Now, to be fair, I haven't had the time to go through all of these newspaper websites ... but durned if I don't think this is actual news!

FOXNews covered the story. But the only paper to actually run a story was USAToday, after an interview with Hillary. Of course, now she is claiming that Sandy Berger "is an unofficial adviser."

And while we are the subject of Hillary, let's talk about another story that the MSM won't cover either ... Hillary's pork-barrel spending. She, by the way, is one of the only candidates who refuses to identify her earmarks ... or "congressionally allocated funds."

Well let's take a look at why.

Between 2002 and 2006, Hillary earmarked more than $2.2 billion in spending bills.

In the 2008 defense spending bill, Hillary managed to attach 26 earmarks worth more than $148 million. This was more than any other Senator except her Democratic compadre Carl Levin ... who is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

How about a few local projects including $250,000 to the Seneca Knitting Mill, and $200,000 to the Buffalo Urban Arts Center. And I'm sure that is just the beginning.