Posts
Arm and Protect our Schools!
If you have read my remarks here, you know I am a supporter of Self Defense and the 2nd Amendment. I believe what we can do to counter school shootings at all schools is to begin training and arming teachers. In Colleges, allow students whom have their Concealed Weapons Permits to carry their arms should they choose to.
We already believe in these people enough to trust them with our children 5 days a week. Do we have so little faith in these people to not allow them the option of protecting our children beyond locking the doors to their classrooms and turning off the lights?
I admit this shouldn't be a Cart Blanche arming of people. I have no problem having additional standards set to qualify a teacher or school staff. Maybe psychological evaluation, meeting a set period of time in the position, and extensive training.
We have schools all over the United States which train our Law Enforcement, Military, and Federal Agents which could quickly create a program to suit our schools.
Now, I know most people see all college students as being extras in the background of movies like Animal House. The truth of the matter is those students which go out to pursue a Concealed Weapons Permit are already outside of your norm. In many states, the age requirements already make it so only SOTA's (Students Older Than Average) are even able to get their permits. Many of these students are former military. Others have already been working in the real world and have shown they are not criminals. They have, if they found it necessary, experimented with whatever vices that most students are only now discovering.
We have to remember that a vigorous background check is performed on all applicants. Since I was 14, I have been having different background checks run on me. Many jobs I had when younger required passing the background check before an offer of employment could even be extended. Between many state agencies, the federal government, and private groups, my background has been checked regularly. I am sure that I am not alone in that. Many of my friends also have done this. Some even have such high levels of secret clearance that the DSS and Secret Service have done their backgrounds. Why would our Military and Government trust these people on such a protected level that a college would see them as untrustworthy?
The whole fact of the matter is that once you remove these Gun Free Zone laws, or as I refer to them, Murder Freely Zones, that knowledge alone will make a criminal shooter think twice before going to a school and attempting killings. Criminals seek easy targets. If this wasn't true, why do they seek out seniors to rob? If force wasn't a deterrent, Fort Knox would have been overrun and emptied years ago.
Do we need more shootings like Virgina Tech, Bailey Colorado, Red Lake Minnesota, and Columbine Colorado to learn this lesson?
Do the right thing. Arm our teachers. If you want a real time case study on this, look to Utah. They allow their teachers to carry, and on colleges, students with permits. When was the last time you heard of a school shooting there?
Friday, November 16, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Someone sees Tom Tancredo for what he is...
Tancredo's Raw Truth About Terrorism
By Diana West
Friday, November 16, 2007
Somehow, it isn't fair that with illegal immigration now a defining issue of American politics, the one politician more than any other who has taught Americans to re-imagine their land as a nation with controllable borders is trailing in the GOP presidential polls. I refer, of course, to Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, whose congressional career has been guided by a once-seemingly impossible goal: to convince Americans that we had an illegal immigration problem.
This was something many Americans -- from the business community, with its addiction to cheap labor, to the great middle class, with its addiction to cheap childcare and household help -- all too readily denied.
If convincing people we had an illegal immigration crisis wasn't hard enough, he also had to persuade people there was a solution to this problem of porous borders that 10 or 20 million mainly Spanish-speaking illegal aliens had crossed -- and are still crossing. What are you gonna do, his detractors would say, build a fence?
Well, yes. That was one idea. And while that fence has yet to be built, it has been voted into law and signed by the president (despite his open-border self). In the course of the debate, Tancredo has helped many Americans once again think of the United States as a sovereign nation, not a honey pot -- a worthy testament to a congressional career that he will be bringing to an end by not seeking re-election.
But what about Tancredo's presidential campaign? This week, he debuted a new TV commercial challenging voters, as well as his fellow candidates, to link the illegal alien issue to the national security threat of jihadist terrorism. And despite this being the age of jihadist terrorism, Tancredo's TV spot is a first. It highlights the fact that our borders are open to more than just cheap labor by depicting the ease with which a terrorist enters a shopping mall -- like other terrorists entered the London Underground, the Spanish trains, a school in Russia -- to deposit a backpack-bomb that explodes at the end of the commercial. The message is refreshingly direct: "Tancredo. Before it's too late."
Yes, there is something surreal about the commercial, but not because of the content. What is surreal is the hysteria that has greeted it. After 9/11, 3/11, 7/7, Amman, Amsterdam, Baghdad, Bali, Beslan, Davao, Hadera, Haifa, Jakarta, Jerusalem, Nairobi, New Dehli, Sharm al-Sheik, Tel Aviv, Tunisia and more, what dolt doesn't wonder if and when jihadist cowards will attack our own trains, markets, hotels and restaurants? Tom Tancredo has only taken the mature and responsible course -- not coincidentally, also the politically incorrect course -- by raising this deadly serious issue with the American people. But for this he is castigated as a "fear-monger."
Indeed, as if on cue, the Tancredo-hostile Denver Post editorialized: "New Tancredo ad is a sad case of fear-mongering," adding that Tancredo had "reached a new low -- if that's possible."
"Is Tom Tancredo Too `Tough on Terror'?" blogged the Washington Post. Conclusion to reach: Way too tough.
The Los Angeles Times quoted one Dennis Goldford, a professor of politics at Drake University in Des Moines, who described the Tancredo commercial as "an incredibly fear-based kind of advertisement that some might say is trying to terrorize people into supporting his view." This is rich. Acknowledging terrorism as act of terrorism: Professor, grade yourself an "F."
Meanwhile, the Rocky Mountain News didn't claim even a shred of impartial coverage, sub-heading its report on the Tancredo commercial: "Expert says terrorism images are so blatant commercial won't work." The "expert" here was Bruce Gronbeck, a communications professor at the University of Iowa who teaches a course on politics on the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks (heaven help his students). He said: "This is just blatant, raw fear images, and they've never worked in the United States, period."
"Fear-mongering." "Terrorizing people." "Blatant, raw fear images." The way the "experts" talk, they make it sound as if Tancredo is subjecting citizens to sick "Saw" dismemberment fantasies -- not the plain, awful reality of our tragically jihad-diminished day. Yes, our shopping malls are targets. And yes, our borders are porous. Ignoring this makes it easier to live in a world of pretend, but that's not traditionally where our best presidents have come from. Indeed, how does any credible, responsible presidential candidate ignore the potential connection between shopping-mall targets and porous borders?
Answer: At this nation's politically correct peril.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DianaWest/2007/11/16/tancredos_raw_truth_about_terrorism
By Diana West
Friday, November 16, 2007
Somehow, it isn't fair that with illegal immigration now a defining issue of American politics, the one politician more than any other who has taught Americans to re-imagine their land as a nation with controllable borders is trailing in the GOP presidential polls. I refer, of course, to Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, whose congressional career has been guided by a once-seemingly impossible goal: to convince Americans that we had an illegal immigration problem.
This was something many Americans -- from the business community, with its addiction to cheap labor, to the great middle class, with its addiction to cheap childcare and household help -- all too readily denied.
If convincing people we had an illegal immigration crisis wasn't hard enough, he also had to persuade people there was a solution to this problem of porous borders that 10 or 20 million mainly Spanish-speaking illegal aliens had crossed -- and are still crossing. What are you gonna do, his detractors would say, build a fence?
Well, yes. That was one idea. And while that fence has yet to be built, it has been voted into law and signed by the president (despite his open-border self). In the course of the debate, Tancredo has helped many Americans once again think of the United States as a sovereign nation, not a honey pot -- a worthy testament to a congressional career that he will be bringing to an end by not seeking re-election.
But what about Tancredo's presidential campaign? This week, he debuted a new TV commercial challenging voters, as well as his fellow candidates, to link the illegal alien issue to the national security threat of jihadist terrorism. And despite this being the age of jihadist terrorism, Tancredo's TV spot is a first. It highlights the fact that our borders are open to more than just cheap labor by depicting the ease with which a terrorist enters a shopping mall -- like other terrorists entered the London Underground, the Spanish trains, a school in Russia -- to deposit a backpack-bomb that explodes at the end of the commercial. The message is refreshingly direct: "Tancredo. Before it's too late."
Yes, there is something surreal about the commercial, but not because of the content. What is surreal is the hysteria that has greeted it. After 9/11, 3/11, 7/7, Amman, Amsterdam, Baghdad, Bali, Beslan, Davao, Hadera, Haifa, Jakarta, Jerusalem, Nairobi, New Dehli, Sharm al-Sheik, Tel Aviv, Tunisia and more, what dolt doesn't wonder if and when jihadist cowards will attack our own trains, markets, hotels and restaurants? Tom Tancredo has only taken the mature and responsible course -- not coincidentally, also the politically incorrect course -- by raising this deadly serious issue with the American people. But for this he is castigated as a "fear-monger."
Indeed, as if on cue, the Tancredo-hostile Denver Post editorialized: "New Tancredo ad is a sad case of fear-mongering," adding that Tancredo had "reached a new low -- if that's possible."
"Is Tom Tancredo Too `Tough on Terror'?" blogged the Washington Post. Conclusion to reach: Way too tough.
The Los Angeles Times quoted one Dennis Goldford, a professor of politics at Drake University in Des Moines, who described the Tancredo commercial as "an incredibly fear-based kind of advertisement that some might say is trying to terrorize people into supporting his view." This is rich. Acknowledging terrorism as act of terrorism: Professor, grade yourself an "F."
Meanwhile, the Rocky Mountain News didn't claim even a shred of impartial coverage, sub-heading its report on the Tancredo commercial: "Expert says terrorism images are so blatant commercial won't work." The "expert" here was Bruce Gronbeck, a communications professor at the University of Iowa who teaches a course on politics on the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks (heaven help his students). He said: "This is just blatant, raw fear images, and they've never worked in the United States, period."
"Fear-mongering." "Terrorizing people." "Blatant, raw fear images." The way the "experts" talk, they make it sound as if Tancredo is subjecting citizens to sick "Saw" dismemberment fantasies -- not the plain, awful reality of our tragically jihad-diminished day. Yes, our shopping malls are targets. And yes, our borders are porous. Ignoring this makes it easier to live in a world of pretend, but that's not traditionally where our best presidents have come from. Indeed, how does any credible, responsible presidential candidate ignore the potential connection between shopping-mall targets and porous borders?
Answer: At this nation's politically correct peril.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DianaWest/2007/11/16/tancredos_raw_truth_about_terrorism
But they are good people trying to improve their life...
If this suprises you, read prior story in this blog and also go to http://www.house.gov/mccaul/pdf/Investigaions-Border-Report.pdf
It isn't a question of whether or not Illegal Immigration is bad for our National Security because the proof is already here. Unless we control this and remove Illegals NOW, we will have a massive Fifth Column Group or groups within our borders which cares nothing about our way of life, our government, or you and your family.
-----------------------------------------------------
Lawmen under siege along Mexico border
By Jerry Seper
The Washington Times,
November 15, 2007
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071115/NATION/111150077/1002
Alien and drug smugglers along the U.S.-Mexico border have spawned a rise in violence against federal, state and local law-enforcement authorities, who say they are outmanned and outgunned.
'They've got weapons, high-tech radios, computers, cell phones, Global Positioning Systems, spotters and can react faster than we are able to,' said Shawn P. Moran, a 10-year U.S. Border Patrol veteran who serves as vice president of the National Border Patrol Council Local 1613 in San Diego.
'And they have no hesitancy to attack the agents on the line, with anything from assault rifles and improvised Molotov cocktails to rocks, concrete slabs and bottles,' he said. 'There are so many agent 'rockings' that few are even reported anymore. If we wrote them all up, that's all we would be doing.'
Assaults against Border Patrol agents have more than doubled over the past two years, many by Mexico-based alien and drug gangs more inclined than ever to use violence as a means of ensuring success in the smuggling of people and contraband.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff acknowledges that although the department has begun to make progress against 'the criminals and thugs' operating along the U.S.-Mexico border, 'we are beginning to see more violence in some border communities and against our Border Patrol agents as these traffickers ... seek to protect their turf.
'We must provide the manpower and resources they need to carry out their duties, and we are working hard to make sure they get them,' Mr. Chertoff said during a speech in Houston this month.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the investigative arm of Homeland Security, stated in a report earlier this year that border gangs were becoming increasingly ruthless — targeting rivals, along with federal, state and local police. ICE described violence on the border as rising dramatically over the past three years in what it called 'an unprecedented surge.'
But many agents think they are viewed as 'expendable' by the managers within Homeland Security and the Border Patrol. They say that while the number of agents overall has increased dramatically over the past year, the actual number of line agents has not seen a corresponding jump.
Several noted that one six-mile section of border near San Diego, regarded as one of the most dangerous alien- and drug-smuggling corridors in the country, previously was assigned as many as 50 agents, but has been expanded to 13 miles and has one agent posted for each mile.
'That kind of situation is becoming increasingly common,' Mr. Moran said. 'The status quo is unacceptable. Agents are being assaulted four to five times per shift. Ironically, the region has often been touted as the cornerstone of Operation Gatekeeper. Well, the cornerstone is crumbling and if changes don't happen soon, we will lose an agent.'
Operation Gatekeeper was a Clinton-era security initiative that put 300 agents on the U.S.-Mexico border near San Diego, along with more fencing and lighting. It was based on a similar program in El Paso, Texas, where agents were stationed within sight of one another at main crossing points in order to form a human wall.
'Where are all these new agents they say they're hiring?' Mr. Moran asked. 'It's hard to believe that Mr. Chertoff means it when he says his job is to provide the manpower and resources the agents need to carry out their duties, to give them the means to protect themselves against violence from criminal traffickers.'
Mr. Moran noted that many agents are being assigned to 'non-border activities,' including jobs at Border Patrol headquarters in Washington. He said the agency's headquarters soon may be the largest regional office in the entire Border Patrol, 'assigned the task of telling the public what a good job we're doing.'
Several agents noted that many of the alien- and drug-smuggling gangs targeting law-enforcement authorities are doing so with sophisticated weaponry. They noted that in February, an ICE-led task force seized two completed improvised explosive devices, materials for making 33 more devices, 300 primers, 1,280 rounds of ammunition, five grenades, nine pipes with end caps, 26 grenade triggers, 31 grenade spoons, 40 grenade pins, 19 black powder casings, a silencer and cash during raids in Laredo, Texas.
'Keeping explosives and other high-powered weaponry out of the hands of violent criminal organizations is a central focus of the new Border Enforcement Security Task Force in Laredo,' Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Julie L. Myers, who heads ICE, said in announcing the seizures. 'ICE is working day and night with its task force partners to stem the tide of violence that has been ravaging border communities in south Texas.'
--------------------------------------------
So, watch this story and realize that until many Border Patrol, ICE, and our other Law Enforcement Officers are killed will any Liberal Left Media pick this story up, and I will bet they blame this on not making Mexico a State.
Close the border, arm our guys with better firepower and the option to shoot first.
It isn't a question of whether or not Illegal Immigration is bad for our National Security because the proof is already here. Unless we control this and remove Illegals NOW, we will have a massive Fifth Column Group or groups within our borders which cares nothing about our way of life, our government, or you and your family.
-----------------------------------------------------
Lawmen under siege along Mexico border
By Jerry Seper
The Washington Times,
November 15, 2007
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071115/NATION/111150077/1002
Alien and drug smugglers along the U.S.-Mexico border have spawned a rise in violence against federal, state and local law-enforcement authorities, who say they are outmanned and outgunned.
'They've got weapons, high-tech radios, computers, cell phones, Global Positioning Systems, spotters and can react faster than we are able to,' said Shawn P. Moran, a 10-year U.S. Border Patrol veteran who serves as vice president of the National Border Patrol Council Local 1613 in San Diego.
'And they have no hesitancy to attack the agents on the line, with anything from assault rifles and improvised Molotov cocktails to rocks, concrete slabs and bottles,' he said. 'There are so many agent 'rockings' that few are even reported anymore. If we wrote them all up, that's all we would be doing.'
Assaults against Border Patrol agents have more than doubled over the past two years, many by Mexico-based alien and drug gangs more inclined than ever to use violence as a means of ensuring success in the smuggling of people and contraband.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff acknowledges that although the department has begun to make progress against 'the criminals and thugs' operating along the U.S.-Mexico border, 'we are beginning to see more violence in some border communities and against our Border Patrol agents as these traffickers ... seek to protect their turf.
'We must provide the manpower and resources they need to carry out their duties, and we are working hard to make sure they get them,' Mr. Chertoff said during a speech in Houston this month.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the investigative arm of Homeland Security, stated in a report earlier this year that border gangs were becoming increasingly ruthless — targeting rivals, along with federal, state and local police. ICE described violence on the border as rising dramatically over the past three years in what it called 'an unprecedented surge.'
But many agents think they are viewed as 'expendable' by the managers within Homeland Security and the Border Patrol. They say that while the number of agents overall has increased dramatically over the past year, the actual number of line agents has not seen a corresponding jump.
Several noted that one six-mile section of border near San Diego, regarded as one of the most dangerous alien- and drug-smuggling corridors in the country, previously was assigned as many as 50 agents, but has been expanded to 13 miles and has one agent posted for each mile.
'That kind of situation is becoming increasingly common,' Mr. Moran said. 'The status quo is unacceptable. Agents are being assaulted four to five times per shift. Ironically, the region has often been touted as the cornerstone of Operation Gatekeeper. Well, the cornerstone is crumbling and if changes don't happen soon, we will lose an agent.'
Operation Gatekeeper was a Clinton-era security initiative that put 300 agents on the U.S.-Mexico border near San Diego, along with more fencing and lighting. It was based on a similar program in El Paso, Texas, where agents were stationed within sight of one another at main crossing points in order to form a human wall.
'Where are all these new agents they say they're hiring?' Mr. Moran asked. 'It's hard to believe that Mr. Chertoff means it when he says his job is to provide the manpower and resources the agents need to carry out their duties, to give them the means to protect themselves against violence from criminal traffickers.'
Mr. Moran noted that many agents are being assigned to 'non-border activities,' including jobs at Border Patrol headquarters in Washington. He said the agency's headquarters soon may be the largest regional office in the entire Border Patrol, 'assigned the task of telling the public what a good job we're doing.'
Several agents noted that many of the alien- and drug-smuggling gangs targeting law-enforcement authorities are doing so with sophisticated weaponry. They noted that in February, an ICE-led task force seized two completed improvised explosive devices, materials for making 33 more devices, 300 primers, 1,280 rounds of ammunition, five grenades, nine pipes with end caps, 26 grenade triggers, 31 grenade spoons, 40 grenade pins, 19 black powder casings, a silencer and cash during raids in Laredo, Texas.
'Keeping explosives and other high-powered weaponry out of the hands of violent criminal organizations is a central focus of the new Border Enforcement Security Task Force in Laredo,' Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Julie L. Myers, who heads ICE, said in announcing the seizures. 'ICE is working day and night with its task force partners to stem the tide of violence that has been ravaging border communities in south Texas.'
--------------------------------------------
So, watch this story and realize that until many Border Patrol, ICE, and our other Law Enforcement Officers are killed will any Liberal Left Media pick this story up, and I will bet they blame this on not making Mexico a State.
Close the border, arm our guys with better firepower and the option to shoot first.
But the Democrats said it first?!?!?
So as you read the following article, you will see the L.A. Times decry Tom Tancredo for saying we have Muslim Radicals in our country, but I will show you where he got his information, and it was from the Democrats.
Maybe someday the Liberal Left Media will actually report the truth...
-----------------------------------------------------
Tancredo campaign ad sets off bomb
By James Rainey
Los Angeles Times,
November 13, 2007
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-tancredo13nov13,1,4500509.story
Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo on Monday unveiled a television ad depicting a hooded terrorist detonating a bomb inside a shopping mall, a message the Colorado congressman said he hoped would vault illegal immigration to its rightful place at the center of the campaign.
Critics accused Tancredo of fear-mongering.
The 30-second spot, which began airing on cable television in Iowa, casts Tancredo as the only candidate brave enough to buck political convention and discuss the true threat of immigration -- terrorists crossing into the U.S. To view the ad, click here. http://teamtancredo.org/
It ends with the image of a backpack abandoned in a crowded mall, a black screen and the sound of a loud explosion. An on-screen message declares: 'Tancredo . . . before it's too late.'
Tancredo, who has lagged in a large primary field, introduced the ad and an accompanying radio spot in Des Moines. Iowa is to hold its first-in-the-nation caucuses Jan. 3.
'The consequences of uncontrolled immigration are far more serious than our leaders want us to believe,' the candidate said in a prepared statement. 'The safety of Americans and the security of our way of life are on the line.'
Dennis Goldford, a professor of politics at Drake University in Des Moines, called the Tancredo spot 'an incredibly fear-based kind of advertisement that some might say is trying to terrorize people into supporting his view.'
Goldford said the commercial's culminating explosion evoked memories of a 1964 ad by President Johnson that used a little girl plucking petals from a daisy and a mushroom cloud to suggest that Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, the Republican presidential candidate, would set off a nuclear war. To see the famous daisy ad and an archive of presidential campaign ads from the beginning of television, click here. http://livingroomcandidate.movingimage.us/index.php
The new ad says Tancredo would protect Americans from 'jihadists who froth with hate.' An immigration activist says it's Tancredo 'frothing with hate.'
'I think this is political pandering at its worst,' said spokeswoman Clarissa Martinez of the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, which backed a congressional compromise that would have allowed some illegal immigrants to gain citizenship. 'Unfortunately, we may see more ads like this in 2008.'
Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, declined to comment on the ad because the nonprofit is not supposed to engage in political advocacy. But his organization has voiced some of the same concerns as Tancredo. 'FAIR has been saying for a long time you can't have the border open only to allow gardeners and busboys into this country and not expect terrorists to take advantage,' Mehlman said Monday.
The Tancredo ad begins with the image of a gloved hand jamming a bomb into a backpack. Then it follows a hooded figure, whose face cannot be seen, strolling through a mall as a narrator decries '20 million aliens who have come to take our jobs' and 'Islamic terrorists [who] now freely roam U.S. soil.'
Footage of bombed-out trains and a boy bloodied in an overseas terrorist attack follow, then pictures of shoppers and a woman pushing a stroller through an airy mall. As the hooded figure leaves the backpack beside a bench and walks away, the narrator announces: 'The price we pay for spineless politicians who refuse to defend our borders against those who come to kill.' Then the explosion sounds.
The ad appears to play off a report last week that Al Qaeda might target shopping malls in Los Angeles and Chicago this holiday season. Counter-terrorism officials have downplayed the warning, saying it was based on an uncorroborated report from a foreign intelligence source.
Tancredo spokesman Alan Moore said the ad will air next in New Hampshire and then nationally, although he did not provide details on how widely the cash-strapped campaign can afford to place the spots.
When candidates last reported on their finances at the end of September, Tancredo had $110,079 on hand. That would seem to limit use of the ad, titled 'Tough on Terror.'
In an accompanying radio spot, the congressman promises to 'prosecute those who provide sanctuary to anyone who would harm us, deport all those who do not belong here, and put the military on the border if necessary.'
+++
Tancredo Ad Links Immigration to Terrorism
The Wall Street Journal Blogs,
November 13, 2007
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/11/13/tancredo-ad-links-immigration-to-terrorism/
--------------------------------------------------
Ok, here is where this information originally came from.
A Line in the Sand:Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border
PREPARED BY THE MAJORITY STAFF OF THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Chairman
http://www.house.gov/mccaul/pdf/Investigaions-Border-Report.pdf
I highly recommend that everyone reads this, and then shares it with everyone they know. Tom Tancredo was not the first to say this. The Majority Staff (Democrats) wrote this report.
Maybe someday the Liberal Left Media will actually report the truth...
-----------------------------------------------------
Tancredo campaign ad sets off bomb
By James Rainey
Los Angeles Times,
November 13, 2007
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-tancredo13nov13,1,4500509.story
Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo on Monday unveiled a television ad depicting a hooded terrorist detonating a bomb inside a shopping mall, a message the Colorado congressman said he hoped would vault illegal immigration to its rightful place at the center of the campaign.
Critics accused Tancredo of fear-mongering.
The 30-second spot, which began airing on cable television in Iowa, casts Tancredo as the only candidate brave enough to buck political convention and discuss the true threat of immigration -- terrorists crossing into the U.S. To view the ad, click here. http://teamtancredo.org/
It ends with the image of a backpack abandoned in a crowded mall, a black screen and the sound of a loud explosion. An on-screen message declares: 'Tancredo . . . before it's too late.'
Tancredo, who has lagged in a large primary field, introduced the ad and an accompanying radio spot in Des Moines. Iowa is to hold its first-in-the-nation caucuses Jan. 3.
'The consequences of uncontrolled immigration are far more serious than our leaders want us to believe,' the candidate said in a prepared statement. 'The safety of Americans and the security of our way of life are on the line.'
Dennis Goldford, a professor of politics at Drake University in Des Moines, called the Tancredo spot 'an incredibly fear-based kind of advertisement that some might say is trying to terrorize people into supporting his view.'
Goldford said the commercial's culminating explosion evoked memories of a 1964 ad by President Johnson that used a little girl plucking petals from a daisy and a mushroom cloud to suggest that Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, the Republican presidential candidate, would set off a nuclear war. To see the famous daisy ad and an archive of presidential campaign ads from the beginning of television, click here. http://livingroomcandidate.movingimage.us/index.php
The new ad says Tancredo would protect Americans from 'jihadists who froth with hate.' An immigration activist says it's Tancredo 'frothing with hate.'
'I think this is political pandering at its worst,' said spokeswoman Clarissa Martinez of the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, which backed a congressional compromise that would have allowed some illegal immigrants to gain citizenship. 'Unfortunately, we may see more ads like this in 2008.'
Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, declined to comment on the ad because the nonprofit is not supposed to engage in political advocacy. But his organization has voiced some of the same concerns as Tancredo. 'FAIR has been saying for a long time you can't have the border open only to allow gardeners and busboys into this country and not expect terrorists to take advantage,' Mehlman said Monday.
The Tancredo ad begins with the image of a gloved hand jamming a bomb into a backpack. Then it follows a hooded figure, whose face cannot be seen, strolling through a mall as a narrator decries '20 million aliens who have come to take our jobs' and 'Islamic terrorists [who] now freely roam U.S. soil.'
Footage of bombed-out trains and a boy bloodied in an overseas terrorist attack follow, then pictures of shoppers and a woman pushing a stroller through an airy mall. As the hooded figure leaves the backpack beside a bench and walks away, the narrator announces: 'The price we pay for spineless politicians who refuse to defend our borders against those who come to kill.' Then the explosion sounds.
The ad appears to play off a report last week that Al Qaeda might target shopping malls in Los Angeles and Chicago this holiday season. Counter-terrorism officials have downplayed the warning, saying it was based on an uncorroborated report from a foreign intelligence source.
Tancredo spokesman Alan Moore said the ad will air next in New Hampshire and then nationally, although he did not provide details on how widely the cash-strapped campaign can afford to place the spots.
When candidates last reported on their finances at the end of September, Tancredo had $110,079 on hand. That would seem to limit use of the ad, titled 'Tough on Terror.'
In an accompanying radio spot, the congressman promises to 'prosecute those who provide sanctuary to anyone who would harm us, deport all those who do not belong here, and put the military on the border if necessary.'
+++
Tancredo Ad Links Immigration to Terrorism
The Wall Street Journal Blogs,
November 13, 2007
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/11/13/tancredo-ad-links-immigration-to-terrorism/
--------------------------------------------------
Ok, here is where this information originally came from.
A Line in the Sand:Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border
PREPARED BY THE MAJORITY STAFF OF THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Chairman
http://www.house.gov/mccaul/pdf/Investigaions-Border-Report.pdf
I highly recommend that everyone reads this, and then shares it with everyone they know. Tom Tancredo was not the first to say this. The Majority Staff (Democrats) wrote this report.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Were they speaking English when on the floor?
I hope they pass this. An English Only law in the United States levels the field for the majority of Americans.
--------------------------------------
House Anger Over English-Only Policies Boils Over
By David Rogers
The Wall Street Journal Blogs,
November 9, 2007
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/11/09/house-anger-over-english-only-policies-boils-over/
Frustration among members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus broke into the open this morning in a rare twist: Democrats supporting a motion to adjourn the chamber their party controls.
California Rep. Joe Baca, a leader in the House caucus, set off the fireworks in protest of the Democratic leadership’s handling of a vote Thursday night related to English-only practices in the workplace. The adjournment motion failed narrowly, 204-184, with some of the protesters backing down. But the incident reflects real anger in the caucus given what many perceive as the current anti-immigrant political climate in Congress.
The collapse of immigration overhaul legislation in the Senate this summer has all but doomed efforts to address the millions of undocumented workers in the U.S. The so-called “Dream Act” to help the children of illegal aliens establish themselves in the U.S. has stalled. At the same time, there has been a steady drumbeat of proposals to increase border security funding or require greater proof of legal residency to qualify for federally supported healthcare programs.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) has complained, especially of the impasse in the Senate blocking the Dream Act. But among some factions in her own party, there has been some sympathy for English-only policies that have angered Hispanic lawmakers.
At issue Thursday night was a Republican nonbinding motion supportive of language that would bar Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from taking civil action against any organization which requires its employees to speak English at work. The Senate has adopted similar language as part of a budget bill funding the EEOC, and by a 218-186 margin, with 36 Democrats joining Republicans, the House voted to instruct its negotiators to accept the Senate amendment.
Baca complained that the leadership hadn’t adequately anticipated the motion. Fourteen Democrats were absent and others, who voted with the Republicans against the EEOC, were unaware of the motion’s import. “We need better intelligence” he said.
“English-only is the only issue that unites all Hispanics,” said Rep. Jose Serrano (D., N.Y.).
-----------------------
Why is it only the Hispanics we hear from? Where are all of the other Illegals in this?
The majority of America Citizens support this and increased enforcement. It is Big Business and those who profit from the use of Illegal Labor who are supporting Illegal Immigration.
The rest of people supporting Illegal Immigration are too blind to see the truths behind the issue. If they really looked past the media spin from the left to the meat of the matter, they would want to beat those fighting for Amnesty.
Do not get me wrong, it is not just the Left which helped cause this problem. The Right is responsible too. However it is now most of the Right and some of the Left which is truly listening to their voters and taking action.
This isn't about race, unless you support Illegal Immigration. In that case all against it are racist even though my issue with all of this is the ILLEGAL issue, not skin color or anything else.
Do your research. Listen to what is actually said, what they write, and look for the truths. I admit there is some against all immigration due to racism, but I am not part of that, nor are the majority of people against illegal immigration.
It is a matter of answering this one question: Should we reward criminals for their crimes?
--------------------------------------
House Anger Over English-Only Policies Boils Over
By David Rogers
The Wall Street Journal Blogs,
November 9, 2007
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/11/09/house-anger-over-english-only-policies-boils-over/
Frustration among members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus broke into the open this morning in a rare twist: Democrats supporting a motion to adjourn the chamber their party controls.
California Rep. Joe Baca, a leader in the House caucus, set off the fireworks in protest of the Democratic leadership’s handling of a vote Thursday night related to English-only practices in the workplace. The adjournment motion failed narrowly, 204-184, with some of the protesters backing down. But the incident reflects real anger in the caucus given what many perceive as the current anti-immigrant political climate in Congress.
The collapse of immigration overhaul legislation in the Senate this summer has all but doomed efforts to address the millions of undocumented workers in the U.S. The so-called “Dream Act” to help the children of illegal aliens establish themselves in the U.S. has stalled. At the same time, there has been a steady drumbeat of proposals to increase border security funding or require greater proof of legal residency to qualify for federally supported healthcare programs.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) has complained, especially of the impasse in the Senate blocking the Dream Act. But among some factions in her own party, there has been some sympathy for English-only policies that have angered Hispanic lawmakers.
At issue Thursday night was a Republican nonbinding motion supportive of language that would bar Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from taking civil action against any organization which requires its employees to speak English at work. The Senate has adopted similar language as part of a budget bill funding the EEOC, and by a 218-186 margin, with 36 Democrats joining Republicans, the House voted to instruct its negotiators to accept the Senate amendment.
Baca complained that the leadership hadn’t adequately anticipated the motion. Fourteen Democrats were absent and others, who voted with the Republicans against the EEOC, were unaware of the motion’s import. “We need better intelligence” he said.
“English-only is the only issue that unites all Hispanics,” said Rep. Jose Serrano (D., N.Y.).
-----------------------
Why is it only the Hispanics we hear from? Where are all of the other Illegals in this?
The majority of America Citizens support this and increased enforcement. It is Big Business and those who profit from the use of Illegal Labor who are supporting Illegal Immigration.
The rest of people supporting Illegal Immigration are too blind to see the truths behind the issue. If they really looked past the media spin from the left to the meat of the matter, they would want to beat those fighting for Amnesty.
Do not get me wrong, it is not just the Left which helped cause this problem. The Right is responsible too. However it is now most of the Right and some of the Left which is truly listening to their voters and taking action.
This isn't about race, unless you support Illegal Immigration. In that case all against it are racist even though my issue with all of this is the ILLEGAL issue, not skin color or anything else.
Do your research. Listen to what is actually said, what they write, and look for the truths. I admit there is some against all immigration due to racism, but I am not part of that, nor are the majority of people against illegal immigration.
It is a matter of answering this one question: Should we reward criminals for their crimes?
Doug Giles from Clash Radio
This video is property of Doug Giles and Clash Radio.
I just love what he has to say and agree, so I hope they do not mind me posting it here.
Goto www.ClashRadio.com for more from Doug.
I just love what he has to say and agree, so I hope they do not mind me posting it here.
Goto www.ClashRadio.com for more from Doug.
P.S. Doug Giles rocks!
Someone missed a turn on the Mountain
They said they were chasing a beer, opps, a bear. I guess they were going to follow him down the creek. Enjoy!
No, I do not think so.
I will have my comments at the end of this article.
-------------------------------
Cisneros: GOP stand on immigration risky
By Robert T Garrett
The Dallas Morning News, November 13, 2007 http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/DN-cisneros_13tex.ART.State.Edition1.41c1015.html#
Austin -- While many GOP presidential hopefuls are quick to deplore illegal immigration, they should be careful, former U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros warned Monday.
They risk driving Hispanic voters into Democrats' arms for years to come, he said.
Mr. Cisneros, in an interview before he spoke to the Hispanic Scholarship Consortium in Austin, said that though the Republicans use immigration to fire up their base, they may wind up deeply angering Hispanics.
'Those who have simply focused on security at the border and not on the other humane aspects' of the immigration issue offend Hispanics, he said.
Mr. Cisneros predicted Hispanic voters would respond by voting more heavily for Democrats, as has happened in California since the mid-1990s. There, he said, many Hispanic voters have memories of Republican Gov. Pete Wilson's scary TV ads about immigration, which he used to successfully revive his re-election bid in 1994.
Speaking of Republicans running for president, Mr. Cisneros said, 'The harder the Republican line on immigration, the more Latino votes are likely to be lost, and not just for the short run.'
Mr. Cisneros, a staunch Democrat and former San Antonio mayor, said that the Democrats seeking the White House should have 'a little bit easier' time staking out a position on immigration.
He said they can support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, coupled with border security improvements and a guest worker program, because business leaders and President Bush have endorsed such items in a comprehensive immigration overhaul bill.
While the bill stalled in Congress, Democratic candidates can 'be in the mainstream' by demanding tough enforcement and yet a recognition of the economic contributions of illegal immigrants, Mr. Cisneros said.
While he served in the Clinton administration and is 'highly impressed' with Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Cisneros said he supports New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson for his party's presidential nomination.
He cast Mr. Richardson's candidacy, even if unsuccessful, as crucial to the eventual election of a president who is Hispanic.
Mr. Cisneros said that next year, 'just the sheer numbers' of Hispanics in potential battleground states will make the Hispanic vote 'more important than it has ever been.'
While it's hard to predict turnout and Hispanic voters' sympathies until the two parties decide on their tickets, Mr. Cisneros said Democrats should keep in mind that there is a large, possibly crucial Hispanic vote in swing states such as Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Arizona.
'Obviously, a Bill Richardson presence on the ticket somewhere could be very helpful,' Mr. Cisneros said.
Of the Republicans running for president, only John McCain 'has any potential to woo Latino votes,' Mr. Cisneros said.
He said the Arizona senator has been 'very responsible on immigration. ... It has cost him votes among Republicans that he's been so courageous and balanced.'
Mrs. Clinton's recent debate flub on an immigration-related question won't hurt her, Mr. Cisneros predicted.
Mrs. Clinton hedged on whether she backed an effort in New York to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. She said she understood why governors are forced to take such steps but didn't necessarily agree.
---------------------------------------
OK, my issue is right here where he said "they can support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants".
What? We should reward illegals with citizenship? Why? Should we also reward bank robbers with a free car, or a rapist with a free house?
They are ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, so why should we roll out the red carpet for them? I notice that he made this a racial issue by saying Hispanics. The last time I looked at the meaning of Illegal, it wasn't related to any race. What about the Illegals from China, or Europe, or the Middle East? I highlighted every racial group mentioned here. Do you see multiple groups? Go look back and count the highlighted groups mentioned.
Do you see this? He only mentioned one group.
Did he do this because he is bigoted against non-hispanics? Or is he the racist? Perhaps he just overlooked this error in his thinking without malice.
This issue does not deal with only one group, unless you look at the Illegal part. Illegals are male, female, white, black, red, yellow, brown, and shades of all the aforementioned. How did he fail to mention all of the other Illegals?
If you watch Democrats, you will see that they want special treatment for a special group and usually no-one calls them on it, but Dear God if a Republican called for special treatment for a special group because they would be smeared through out every media venue in our nation.
When I see the complete list of crimes we are going to reward people for, I will have to see which crime I want to commit to get special treatment. Oh, wait, we do have special treatment for criminals that regular citizens do not get. Jail and Prison.
Now explain to me why these criminals should be given the right to vote. Dear God, isn't that the most protected right we have in our nation? The right for citizens to vote for citizens to do what is needed to help citizens. If we give that away to anyone who comes to our nation legally or not, you might as well declare all people in this WORLD Americans and send them ballots.
I see no other country in the world doing this, and I do not believe we should be the first. Actually, I do not believe we should ever be part of anything like that. If you want to see what would happen search for the things the United Nations has done, and show me which ones actually helped the people, not the select few, but the people. Look to "Food For Oil" program to learn more and see all of the corruption there. At least here while we have home rule, if we catch someone commiting a crime, we can punish them. Who is serving prison out of the UN for what they did? Anyone? I thought not....
-------------------------------
Cisneros: GOP stand on immigration risky
By Robert T Garrett
The Dallas Morning News, November 13, 2007 http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/DN-cisneros_13tex.ART.State.Edition1.41c1015.html#
Austin -- While many GOP presidential hopefuls are quick to deplore illegal immigration, they should be careful, former U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros warned Monday.
They risk driving Hispanic voters into Democrats' arms for years to come, he said.
Mr. Cisneros, in an interview before he spoke to the Hispanic Scholarship Consortium in Austin, said that though the Republicans use immigration to fire up their base, they may wind up deeply angering Hispanics.
'Those who have simply focused on security at the border and not on the other humane aspects' of the immigration issue offend Hispanics, he said.
Mr. Cisneros predicted Hispanic voters would respond by voting more heavily for Democrats, as has happened in California since the mid-1990s. There, he said, many Hispanic voters have memories of Republican Gov. Pete Wilson's scary TV ads about immigration, which he used to successfully revive his re-election bid in 1994.
Speaking of Republicans running for president, Mr. Cisneros said, 'The harder the Republican line on immigration, the more Latino votes are likely to be lost, and not just for the short run.'
Mr. Cisneros, a staunch Democrat and former San Antonio mayor, said that the Democrats seeking the White House should have 'a little bit easier' time staking out a position on immigration.
He said they can support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, coupled with border security improvements and a guest worker program, because business leaders and President Bush have endorsed such items in a comprehensive immigration overhaul bill.
While the bill stalled in Congress, Democratic candidates can 'be in the mainstream' by demanding tough enforcement and yet a recognition of the economic contributions of illegal immigrants, Mr. Cisneros said.
While he served in the Clinton administration and is 'highly impressed' with Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Cisneros said he supports New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson for his party's presidential nomination.
He cast Mr. Richardson's candidacy, even if unsuccessful, as crucial to the eventual election of a president who is Hispanic.
Mr. Cisneros said that next year, 'just the sheer numbers' of Hispanics in potential battleground states will make the Hispanic vote 'more important than it has ever been.'
While it's hard to predict turnout and Hispanic voters' sympathies until the two parties decide on their tickets, Mr. Cisneros said Democrats should keep in mind that there is a large, possibly crucial Hispanic vote in swing states such as Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Arizona.
'Obviously, a Bill Richardson presence on the ticket somewhere could be very helpful,' Mr. Cisneros said.
Of the Republicans running for president, only John McCain 'has any potential to woo Latino votes,' Mr. Cisneros said.
He said the Arizona senator has been 'very responsible on immigration. ... It has cost him votes among Republicans that he's been so courageous and balanced.'
Mrs. Clinton's recent debate flub on an immigration-related question won't hurt her, Mr. Cisneros predicted.
Mrs. Clinton hedged on whether she backed an effort in New York to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. She said she understood why governors are forced to take such steps but didn't necessarily agree.
---------------------------------------
OK, my issue is right here where he said "they can support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants".
What? We should reward illegals with citizenship? Why? Should we also reward bank robbers with a free car, or a rapist with a free house?
They are ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, so why should we roll out the red carpet for them? I notice that he made this a racial issue by saying Hispanics. The last time I looked at the meaning of Illegal, it wasn't related to any race. What about the Illegals from China, or Europe, or the Middle East? I highlighted every racial group mentioned here. Do you see multiple groups? Go look back and count the highlighted groups mentioned.
Do you see this? He only mentioned one group.
Did he do this because he is bigoted against non-hispanics? Or is he the racist? Perhaps he just overlooked this error in his thinking without malice.
This issue does not deal with only one group, unless you look at the Illegal part. Illegals are male, female, white, black, red, yellow, brown, and shades of all the aforementioned. How did he fail to mention all of the other Illegals?
If you watch Democrats, you will see that they want special treatment for a special group and usually no-one calls them on it, but Dear God if a Republican called for special treatment for a special group because they would be smeared through out every media venue in our nation.
When I see the complete list of crimes we are going to reward people for, I will have to see which crime I want to commit to get special treatment. Oh, wait, we do have special treatment for criminals that regular citizens do not get. Jail and Prison.
Now explain to me why these criminals should be given the right to vote. Dear God, isn't that the most protected right we have in our nation? The right for citizens to vote for citizens to do what is needed to help citizens. If we give that away to anyone who comes to our nation legally or not, you might as well declare all people in this WORLD Americans and send them ballots.
I see no other country in the world doing this, and I do not believe we should be the first. Actually, I do not believe we should ever be part of anything like that. If you want to see what would happen search for the things the United Nations has done, and show me which ones actually helped the people, not the select few, but the people. Look to "Food For Oil" program to learn more and see all of the corruption there. At least here while we have home rule, if we catch someone commiting a crime, we can punish them. Who is serving prison out of the UN for what they did? Anyone? I thought not....
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Immigration Amnesty in Any Form is Wrong
Now I love it when Mike discusses illegal immigration because it blows holes in the whole racism aspect of the debate. Add to this groups like "You Don't Speak For Me" and many others, you quickly realize that illegal immigration supporters use terms like Racist, Bigot, Nazi, and many others to scare off the sheeple from entering this debate.
If illegal immigration was a good thing and not wrong, it wouldn't be called illegal. Unregulated immigration, uncontrolled borders, and carte blanche citizenship hurts those who are the true citizens of that nation. If you have your citizenship legally whether you were born here or became a legal citizen, it is not fair to you or others to allow illegal immigrants to come and take those rights and liberties via theft.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Immigration Amnesty in Any Form is Wrong
By Michael Steele
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelSteele/2007/11/13/immigration_amnesty_in_any_form_is_wrong
New York looks to play an important role in the upcoming presidential elections in more ways than one. Not only could we see an "all New York" presidential line-up (Rudy vs. Hillary) but Democrat Governor Elliott Spitzer has managed to focus the attention of the entire nation on New York by announcing his plan to grant driver’s licenses to illegal aliens.
Governor Spitzer obviously has no clear understanding of the far-reaching and crippling effects on our Nation’s security such a measure would have. By equating providing state-issued legal driver's licenses to the purchase of a MetroCard ("I don't think it is a privilege any more than buying a MetroCard is a privilege," Spitzer said on New York 1 News of his three-tiered license plan. "When we walk down into the subway system to buy a MetroCard, no one says, 'Prove you are a citizen'; no one says, 'Where did you grow up?'"), the Governor insults the intelligence of most Americans who fundamentally understand the difference. I wish the Governor did.
Unlike a MetroCard, a New York driver’s license provides a valid form of state-issued identification, which itself gives the holder a number of state and national benefits. For example, individuals with a valid driver’s license may use that license to apply for a job or to board a plane in any airport in this country. What Governor Spitzer has so irresponsibly proposed is a plan to provide this legal form of identification to persons who are in this country illegally; and as such, his plan would further weaken the social and security systems of our states and nation.
But there is more. One other not so insignificant impact of such a measure is that it would allow illegal immigrants to use this license to register to vote. New York Board of Elections Spokesman Lee Daghlian admits, “It would be [tough to catch] if someone wanted to …. get a number of people registered [to vote] who aren’t citizens and went ahead and got them driver’s licenses”. Once again, Governor Spitzer’s ill-conceived plan would compromise the integrity of our electoral system and make more vulnerable an electoral process that a growing number of Americans are already suspicious of.
Like so many politicians on both sides of the aisle, Governor Spitzer is not listening to New Yorkers. While 70% of the legal citizens of New York oppose this plan, Governor Spitzer stands firm in his resolve to enact this irresponsible and dangerous measure.
Let's be clear: the safety and security of Americans should not be subject to the whims of a "PC" mindset or feel good legislation. Americans are expecting thoughtful and responsible leadership that will not only clearly define the threats we face, but understand what they are in the first place.
Governor Spitzer's plan is not a cause for celebration by the left or by the right; it is just plain bad public policy. When grappling with the important issues, Americans want elected leadership to put aside partisan politics and just make the right decision. The non-partisan public outcry that has accompanied attempts by politicians to grant some form of amnesty to illegal immigrants supports this fact. The Spitzer plan is no different because for many of us, citizenship is a terrible thing to waste.
Michael Steele is a former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland.
If illegal immigration was a good thing and not wrong, it wouldn't be called illegal. Unregulated immigration, uncontrolled borders, and carte blanche citizenship hurts those who are the true citizens of that nation. If you have your citizenship legally whether you were born here or became a legal citizen, it is not fair to you or others to allow illegal immigrants to come and take those rights and liberties via theft.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Immigration Amnesty in Any Form is Wrong
By Michael Steele
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelSteele/2007/11/13/immigration_amnesty_in_any_form_is_wrong
New York looks to play an important role in the upcoming presidential elections in more ways than one. Not only could we see an "all New York" presidential line-up (Rudy vs. Hillary) but Democrat Governor Elliott Spitzer has managed to focus the attention of the entire nation on New York by announcing his plan to grant driver’s licenses to illegal aliens.
Governor Spitzer obviously has no clear understanding of the far-reaching and crippling effects on our Nation’s security such a measure would have. By equating providing state-issued legal driver's licenses to the purchase of a MetroCard ("I don't think it is a privilege any more than buying a MetroCard is a privilege," Spitzer said on New York 1 News of his three-tiered license plan. "When we walk down into the subway system to buy a MetroCard, no one says, 'Prove you are a citizen'; no one says, 'Where did you grow up?'"), the Governor insults the intelligence of most Americans who fundamentally understand the difference. I wish the Governor did.
Unlike a MetroCard, a New York driver’s license provides a valid form of state-issued identification, which itself gives the holder a number of state and national benefits. For example, individuals with a valid driver’s license may use that license to apply for a job or to board a plane in any airport in this country. What Governor Spitzer has so irresponsibly proposed is a plan to provide this legal form of identification to persons who are in this country illegally; and as such, his plan would further weaken the social and security systems of our states and nation.
But there is more. One other not so insignificant impact of such a measure is that it would allow illegal immigrants to use this license to register to vote. New York Board of Elections Spokesman Lee Daghlian admits, “It would be [tough to catch] if someone wanted to …. get a number of people registered [to vote] who aren’t citizens and went ahead and got them driver’s licenses”. Once again, Governor Spitzer’s ill-conceived plan would compromise the integrity of our electoral system and make more vulnerable an electoral process that a growing number of Americans are already suspicious of.
Like so many politicians on both sides of the aisle, Governor Spitzer is not listening to New Yorkers. While 70% of the legal citizens of New York oppose this plan, Governor Spitzer stands firm in his resolve to enact this irresponsible and dangerous measure.
Let's be clear: the safety and security of Americans should not be subject to the whims of a "PC" mindset or feel good legislation. Americans are expecting thoughtful and responsible leadership that will not only clearly define the threats we face, but understand what they are in the first place.
Governor Spitzer's plan is not a cause for celebration by the left or by the right; it is just plain bad public policy. When grappling with the important issues, Americans want elected leadership to put aside partisan politics and just make the right decision. The non-partisan public outcry that has accompanied attempts by politicians to grant some form of amnesty to illegal immigrants supports this fact. The Spitzer plan is no different because for many of us, citizenship is a terrible thing to waste.
Michael Steele is a former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
