History speaks for itself, and so do the results.

President Ronald Reagan | November 6, 1986

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 is the most comprehensive reform of our immigration laws since 1952. In the past 35 years our nation has been increasingly affected by illegal immigration. This legislation takes a major step toward meeting this challenge to our sovereignty. At the same time, it preserves and enhances the Nation’s heritage of legal immigration. I am pleased to sign the bill into law.

In 1981 this administration asked the Congress to pass a comprehensive legislative package, including employer sanctions, other measures to increase enforcement of the immigration laws, and legalization. The act provides these three essential components. The employer sanctions program is the keystone and major element. It will remove the incentive for illegal immigration by eliminating the job opportunities which draw illegal aliens here. We have consistently supported a legalization program which is both generous to the alien and fair to the countless thousands of people throughout the world who seek legally to come to America. The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if they choose, they may become Americans.

—

Where have we heard this before?

Don’t let history repeat itself.

That’s the opinion of no less a man than Fred Barnes. When Fred talks, people listen. Here’s what Fred said this time that’s noteworthy:

THE BUZZ IN WASHINGTON this week is all about Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and his speech Monday night about Iraq. Lugar isn’t ordinarily a topic of lively conversation, except when he bails on President Bush on the “surge” in Iraq. Then he gets attention and deservedly so. He is not a hot dog or a partisan blowhard or a politician worried about re-election. He’s serious and levelheaded.

And wrong. In the speech, Lugar declared there’s not enough time for the surge, the counterinsurgency strategy devised by General David Petraeus to secure and pacify Baghdad and Anbar province, to work. Instead, he proposed a “thoughtful Plan B,” which consists chiefly of diplomacy, economic aid, and a “downsizing and re-deployment” of American troops. Here’s his key sentence: “The prospects that the current ’surge’ strategy will succeed in the way originally envisioned by the president are very limited within the short period framed by our own domestic political debate.”

Lugar makes two major mistakes in his speech. The first is obvious: the surge hasn’t had a chance to work. The troop buildup was just completed this month and the strategy is only now being fully implemented. And Petraeus won’t report on the progress of the new strategy until sometime in September. Yet Lugar says it won’t succeed because of “political fragmentation” in Iraq, “the fatigue of our military,” and constraints imposed the “political process” back home in Washington. Maybe he’s right, but we won’t know that for months.

His second and more important mistake is misunderstanding the effect an American pullback in favor of a diplomatic offensive would have. Lugar insisted the new approach would help achieve America’s “four primary objectives” in Iraq. These are: preventing the creation of a terrorist haven, curbing sectarian violence, preventing Iranian dominance of the region, and “limiting the loss of U.S. credibility in the region.” These are worthy goals. The problem is his Plan B would not achieve them, quite the opposite.

Sen. Lugar was a big fan of the ISG report when it first appeared on the radar screen. Now he’s turned against one of the key opinions in that report:

A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq’s government and a humanitarian catastrophe. Neighboring countries could intervene. Sunni-Shia clashes could spread. Al Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations.

Now Lugar is saying that abandoning Iraq except to fight terrorists and help rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure is the best course of action. Here’s Fred’s explanation of why Sen. Lugar is wrong: (continue reading post »)

Last Saturday, I called into King’s and Michael’s show like I usually do. During the first hour, Michael said that his perspective on campaigns was to “never bring a knife to a gun fight”, a position that I wholeheartedly subscribe to. In fact, when I called, I said that “We can be sure that the DFL is bringing ‘a gun’ to the campaign so let’s adopt this slogan: ‘It’s time to break out the double-barrels’”. This Hill magazine article is another reminder that Democrats are trying to silence us in a variety of ways so it’s time to break out the double-barrels. This time, our target is the (un)Fairness Doctrine.

House Republican lawmakers are preparing to fight anticipated Democratic efforts to regulate talk radio by reviving rules requiring stations to balance conservative hosts such as Rush Limbaugh with liberals such as Al Franken.

Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so drastically that radio executives would opt to scale back on conservative radio programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

They say radio stations would take a financial hit if forced to air balanced programming because liberal talk radio has not proved itself to be as profitable as conservative radio. Air America, the liberal counterpunch to conservative talk radio, filed for bankruptcy in October.

But Democratic leaders say that government has a compelling interest to ensure that listeners are properly informed.

“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

The Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC discarded in 1985, required broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial political issues. Prior to 1985, government regulations called for broadcasters to “make reasonable judgments in good faith” on how to present multiple viewpoints on controversial issues.

First of all, the statement that “Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits…” is utter nonsense. What conservatives are upset about is that (a) the (Un)Fairness Doctrine is a violation of the First Amendment, (b) it’s based on a report that presumes a number of questionable conclusions, all of which can easily be contested. (continue reading post »)

That’s my initial response to hearing Ted Kennedy’s gloating statement after the first cloture vote passed. Here’s what he said:

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., an architect of the bill, said he was proud of the vote, calling it “a major step forward for our national security, for our economy, and for our humanity.”

“We did the right thing today because we know the American people sent us here to act on our most urgent problems. We know they will not stand for small political factions getting in the way,” Kennedy said in a statement following the vote.

This debate is typical of Sen. Kennedy’s complete willingness to throw the truth under the proverbial bus if it gets in the way of his agenda. He’s been so corrupt for so long that he wouldn’t know the truth if it hit him flush in the face. Calling this morning’s vote “a major step forward for our national security, for our economy, and for our humanity” isn’t just laughable, it’s utterly pathetic.

Calling this legislation a “major step forward for our national security” is a bald-faced lie. Sen. Kennedy knows that this legislation doesn’t mean a thing because he knows that President Bush isn’t serious about enforcing the borders. In fact, it isn’t a stretch to say that President Bush hasn’t been any more serious about enforcing the borders than President Clinton was about fighting jihadists.

The truth is that this legislation wouldn’t be a blip on the radar if President Bush and President Clinton had enforced the border. I’ve quoted Fred Thompson about this before but I’ll repeat his quote again here: “A piece of paper won’t protect our borders…”

He’s exactly right. President Bush signed a bill last October to build the fence. Thus far, they’ve built 13 miles of the mandated 870 miles of it. That document hasn’t protected our borders yet, Neither has the Bush administration. If he’d accelerated the process, I’d be inclined to trust him with border security. Right now, I don’t. (continue reading post »)

IN 1986, Ted Kennedy stated:

“This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1-1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this.”

Today, Ted “Likes-’Em-Wet” Kennedy is saying the same thing. And, sadly, so is el Presidente Jorge Bush.

Wiseman once said*: Those who don’t learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. It appears our renegade leaders in Washington have learned nothing.

AP reports: “The Senate voted Tuesday to jump-start a stalled immigration measure to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants.

President Bush said the bill offered a “historic opportunity for Congress to act,” and appeared optimistic about its passage by week’s end.

The great President Ronald Reagan said the same thing in 1986. But under the circumstances, no way he’d do so again.

Sorry, George. We’ve been there, done that — now, our country must seriously deal with stopping the flood of illegal aliens, millions more than 20 years ago. And rewarding them with citizenship is certainly not the way.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., an architect of the bill, said he was proud of the vote, calling it “a major step forward for our national security, for our economy, and for our humanity.”

“We did the right thing today because we know the American people sent us here to act on our most urgent problems. We know they will not stand for small political factions getting in the way,” Kennedy said in a statement following the vote.

The “American people sent us here to act”, indeed. But Washington isn’t listening, and they haven’t for years.

“Small political factions”, says Kennedy to disregard and intentionally mislead. The fact is: The majority of Americans want to see a stop in illegal immigration and enforcement of the laws for U.S. citizenship. By giving it away to law breakers, our “leaders” are making it meaningless.

NewsMax reports:

“The Senate voted 64-35 to resume debate on the bill, which ties tough border security and workplace enforcement measures to a plan to legalize an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants and a create temporary worker program sought by business groups.”

Tough border security. Workplace enforcement measures. Both great steps. Both necessary. We support them. But why include amnesty? We did that before and it didn’t work. There’s no reason to believe it’ll be different today.

If Washington were really concerned about doing what’s right for this country, they would put enforcement first, amnesty later. No strings attached. Why tie the two together? (Special interests, perhaps?)

Let’s see how 10 years of crackdown can work. Securing the border and enforcing employment laws. After that, something tells us we won’t still be talking about 12 millions illegals “hiding in the shadows.” Call it a hunch. Call it predictable.

If we don’t, if Washington passes another amnesty bill, history will indeed repeat itself — and next time the numbers will be far worse and the problem beyond our control.

Please call your elected officials and let them know. Our national sovereignty and security is at stake.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has been keeping vigilant watch…
“Shamnesty on the Senate floor” (6/27)
“The Clay Pigeon” amendment

RELATED:
Illegal Immigration: Senate’s Desires
Trump American People
California Immigration Raids: What Can We
Washington Learn?
Immigration Protest in LA: Photo Essay
They pledge allegiance to the flag…
Only In America: Illegal Immigrants And Their Allies
Rally To Protest Law Enforcement
Is It ‘Amnesty’ or ‘Earned Citizenship’?
Curtail Immigration: Americans Want It
(Including Hispanic Americans)

—
See these important sites:
Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)
VDARE.com
We Need A Fence

—

Read much more on immigration and homeland security
—

Technorati Tags: Border Enforcement, Ted Kennedy, President Bush, Illegal Immigration, National Security, Los Angeles, Immigration, Illegal Aliens, Special Interests, Mexico

According to this article, Fred Thompson’s website ImWithFred.com is a new step in using the internet as a campaign tool. I totally agree.

His organization has opted for a slightly different approach to the Web. Thompson’s website doesn’t have the dizzying array of content blocks the other candidates we mentioned have posted. His main content section is a blog, kept up to date by an administrator at times when the candidate himself isn’t posting.

The important concept Thompson’s people seem to get is the need to have their supporters engage traditional media. His site features specific links to encourage people to write to newspaper editors or call talk radio. Those two sections allow the visitor to pick a state followed by a media market. A results page shows the options available for contacting the media outlet of choice.

It’s universally acknowledged that JFK started ‘the TV Age’ of presidential campaigning. While TV is still an important tool in today’s presidential campaigns, Fred Thompson has started the first true omnimedia presidential campaign. He’s hitting all the radio and TV talk shows. He’s written op-eds for NRO. He’s got his own blog at his ImWithFred website and he’s posted at RedState. He’s used YouTube and other similar types of media to ridicule Michael Moore and to ‘air’ his interview with Peter Robinson.

In other words, he’s taken the internet seriously. In the ‘good old days’ of the 2000 election cycle, the buzz was about whether the candidates had their own websites and how this ‘new’ phenomenon would affect future campaigns. Eight years and a lifetime later, Fred Thompson’s media operations model is light years different . The result? He’s using YouTube and his blog to have a conversation with the American people. (continue reading post »)

UPDATE: Immigration bill advances in Senate

In recent history it has it never been so patently and painfully obvious that the wants of our elected officials supersede those of the US electorate.* The Illegals’ Immigration and Amnesty Bill has not only brought to the forefront our senators’ House of Lords proclivities and behaviors directed against the will of their own communities but, is now being used to smack their constituents in their faces. Firmly and finally our senators—along with our president—have now told we-the-people that only their desires, wallets and pocketbooks count. We-the-people can either accept their increasingly totalitarian dictates—or leave the country. Illegal Aliens are now the important class of people. US citizens and their needs and desires are no longer important. The latest scuttlebutt is that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senate Minority Whip Trent “I hate conservative talk radio” Lott (RINO-MI) have come to agreement on one of their back-door deals. They plan to push through their ‘amnesty-for-everyone-except-legal-US-citizens-and-those-trying
-to-enter-the-country-legally’ in spite of the rising voices of the American people against it.

This week, US politicians intend to lay down the law to the American people: “Our ambitions are more important than yours. Consequently, they override any possible loyalty we had for either you or this country. Get used to it!” Our voices and our votes have now become irrelevant and our political leaders are increasingly listening to and supporting the radical elements of La Raza and MEChA. Recently, the racist group La Raza was given not only input into the Illegals Amnesty Bill but, veto power over it as well! What is the reason for these disloyalties to the United States of America and its people? Answer: The planned replacement of the aforementioned USA by the ‘North American Union’s Security and Prosperity Partnership’. This is, yet, another issue that the corrupt leftist media does not and will not report. Although we in the New Media have been reporting on this vital to the US’ survival issue, it is still largely a secretive one. WND’s Jerome Corsi reports that the US Department of Commerce SPP NAFTA head Geri Word says the reason for the secrecy is: “We did not want to get the contact people of the working groups distracted by calls from the public.” There goes that pesky public again! The ones who actually still think both their voices and votes count. From the mouths and actions of both the US Senate and president—they don’t. (continue reading post »)

After the latest Rasmussen polling data, it’s difficult to imagine why Harry Reid is even thinking about introducing the immigration (nonreform) reform legislation again. Here’s a summation of the data:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 22% of American voters currently favor the legislation. That’s down a point from 23% a couple of weeks ago and down from 26% when the debate in the Senate began. Fifty percent (50%) oppose the Senate bill, while 28% are not sure.

Among the public, there is a bi-partisan lack of enthusiasm for the Senate bill. It is supported by 22% of Republicans, 23% of Democrats, and 22% of those not affiliated with either major party. It is opposed by 52% of Republicans, 50% of Democrats, and 48% of unaffiliateds.

It’s time that the Senate end this charade. It’s time that they stopped acting like they’re doing something meaningful through this legislation. They aren’t. Fred Thompson recently said that “A piece of paper doesn’t enforce the border”, a clear shot at this bill and at President Bush’s indifference to shutting down the Mexico-US border.

The ‘leaders’ who tried pushing this bill down people’s throats won’t be hailed as heroes when they return home for their 4th of July break. I further suspect that if they have any votes right before their August recess, they’ll be greeted with brickbats and pitchforks at their townhall meetings. (continue reading post »)

This Politico.com article tells you everything you need to know about who Democrats fear most:

Even before his expected July announcement, Fred Thompson’s all-but-declared entry into the Republican presidential stakes has prompted the Democratic National Committee to attack him as a potential GOP front-runner and to use his prospective candidacy to raise money.

Democratic strategists say Thompson’s populist style and show-biz allure could prove extremely appealing in a general election at a time when voters are so down on Washington. So the party has launched a preemptive campaign against him that includes a DNC fundraising e-mail branding Thompson, “The inside-outsider.”

“Remember the Republican culture of corruption?” the letter asks. “The revolving door of Republican politicians moving in and out of top political offices and Washington, D.C., lobbying firms? That’s Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson. For years, acting wasn’t the ‘Law & Order’ star’s profession — it was a hobby. In the real world, Thompson has made a fortune in a decades-long career as a Washington lobbyist. And just this month, as part of his role as the ultimate Washington insider, Thompson offered to host yet another fundraising event for Scooter Libby’s legal defense fund. Thompson has been vocal in his support of Libby, saying that he would ‘absolutely’ pardon him. As he runs for president, he’ll try his hardest to hide the truth from the American people. And we need to stop him. Support our efforts to get the truth out about Fred Thompson.”

That email fundraiser sounds like a breathlessly desperate attempt to smear Fred Thompson. The reason for that is simple: They know that Fred Thompson is the most appealing and worrisome GOP candidate this cycle. (continue reading post »)

“Last year, the DNC embarrassed itself with a website purporting to support US troops. Only one problem, as a sharp-eyed tipster told me: The soldier depicted in the patriotic display was Canadian.”

Well, they did it again. “Looks like the Democrats are still using webmasters who don’t have a clue what American troops look like–and they are working in Nancy Pelosi’s office.”

No surprise here. Michelle Malkin has the full story.