Perri Nelson's Website 

Let's read it before we say anything else about it shall we?

Karl over at Leaning Straight Up reposts a long criticism by Sister Toldjah of the debate over the comprehensive immigration reform bill. He also adds to the criticism.

Before saying anything else one way or the other, or listening to yet another pundit from either side, I think it's time to read the full text of the bill, from the official source. Source documents usually do a lot to eliminate confusion.

This is a huge document. Some have called it amnesty, and I must confess that I've listened to them. Others have done economic impact analyses and spoken out against it. Myself, I'm disinclined to support it simply based upon the sheer size of the thing, but I'm going to read the whole thing with an open mind before I say another word about it.

I'm NOT going to stop commenting on the things politicians say about each other though. Nor am I going to stop believing that illegal immigration is bad for our country and citizenry. I have firm opinions in those areas.

Nevertheless, I pride myself on having informed opinions. My opinions on this bill have been influenced primarily by what I've heard on talk radio, and on the news, but that's not good enough anymore. With the source material in front of me I will be able to once again have an informed opinion.

I've included five copies of the link to the bill's full text up to this point in this article. For anyone that STILL can't find it, look here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1348:

This linkfest is for the 12th of June, 2007.

If you have something interesting you'd like to share, feel free to link it here and leave a trackback.

Just remember the trackback policy .

For the best exposure, go to the blogger's oasis and use the linkfest chooser to choose the posts you'd like to hook up with.

A truly stupid way to run a campaign website

Russ feingold for president gives the appearance of a campaign website, but somehow I don't think it really is. Why else would they link to one of my posts?

This isn't even a blog site. It looks like a bot that scans search results for Russ Feingold's name and compiles them into what looks like a blog.

Surely this isn't a campaign site. It's got to be a vanity site. Perhaps Senator Feingold is worried that he doesn't have a public image so he's got to scrape up anything he can for name recognition?

Here, reproduced in it's entirety is the post on Russ feingold for president that links to my post. Give it a good look. You'll see that the content is completely lifted from this post.

Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:08:44 -0400

It's time for a conservative revolution

by Russ feingold for president (russ-feingold-for-president) @ Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:08:44 -0400

Perhaps it's time for a conservative revolution. Our voices can be heard. We can get through to our representatives, even when men like John McCain and Russ Feingold do their worst to make sure...

Original post: It's time for a conservative revolution by at Google Blog Search: feingold for president

Technorati tag: Russ feingold for president

Is that any way to run a campaign? At least those idiots drove a little traffic my way.

It's time for a conservative revolution

Do you recall how recently the spin machines of the Republican front-runners were twisting and warping the definition of "conservative" to fit the political ideologies of their candidates? Do you recall how this past winter, McCain was said to be rallying conservatives? For those of you that have followed it, do you recall when John McCain was leading in the GOP Bloggers straw polls and was many "conservative" respondents' "first choice"?

Do you remember when John McCain said to the Washington Post "My record is the same on all issues, which is that of a conservative Republican. Not a liberal Republican. Not a moderate Republican."?

I said then that it was all a load of horse manure, and that it was just a strategy to position himself for a Presidential campaign run. I outlined a litany of conservative complaints against the Senator from Arizona then.

Senator McCain is not, and has not ever been, a conservative. He has never deserved a single vote from conservatives in his constituency. Conservatives should never have been fooled by this so-called maverick into believing he would be a good choice for President.

I would go so far as to call him a RINO — Republican In Name Only — if it weren't for the fact that the Republican Party itself has become so filled with spineless moderates and outright leftists.

As if we needed further proof that Senator McCain is not a conservative we now have his own words. In the New York Sun today we can find them:

WASHINGTON — While the White House is blaming the Democratic leadership for the collapse of the immigration bill, Senator McCain is directing his ire at members of his own party.

The Arizona senator, asked yesterday to explain the bill's failure last week, cited the work of "the more conservative, anti-immigrant, anti-legislation group" of lawmakers who defeated the proposal in Congress.

That would be "more conservative" than Senator McCain. As for "anti-immigrant", Senator McCain is twisting words. The people who are against this bill are not "anti-immigrant". They are anti-illegal-immigrant. There is an incredibly large difference.

This bill is itself anti-immigrant. This bill favors those who have broken our laws to enter the country over those who have followed our laws to obtain the right to live here legally.

More importantly though, it was truly conservatives that caused this bill to falter. I won't say it failed last week. As long as people like Senator McCain remain actively in support of it this bill isn't dead. 

"I think the Senate works in a way where relatively small numbers can block legislation, but I also think the more conservative, anti-immigrant, anti-legislation group were very well backed up by a very vocal group of people who were supporting them," Mr. McCain said on ABC's "This Week."

Did you catch that? "A very vocal group of people". This is one of the few times that conservative voices in the electorate have spoken out loudly enough to be heard. Somehow that's a bad thing, at least to Senator McCain. Heaven forbid that the American People should cause their representatives to bend their ear to listen to their voices.

Ah, but then that's exactly what Senator McCain doesn't want anyway isn't it? Who can forget that he and Senator Feingold put their efforts and names behind one of the single greatest bills to crush the voice of the people in the 21st century?

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, pulled the bill from the Senate floor last week after it failed a second test vote to limit debate. Mr. McCain's reaction has differed from that of the White House, which has expressed disappointment in Mr. Reid for not allowing a longer period of debate on the bill.

Mr. Reid has faulted Republicans, saying they were trying to stall action on the bill by offering too many amendments.

So how on Earth is that reaction any different from Senator McCain's? Both of them are faulting Republicans. Doesn't that tell you which side of the aisle Mr. McCain truly belongs on?

Yes, I know Senator McCain's reaction was just described as different than that of the White House. If that's all you see in that excerpt, you're missing my point. John McCain is more closely aligned with the Democratic party than with the Republican party.

Why else was he considered by some to be the front-runner for the Democratic Vice-Presidential ticket with John Kerry during the spring of 2004? Even Hillary Clinton got behind that idea.

As for Senator Reid's objection that Republicans were trying to offer too many amendments to this 800 page abomination of a bill (or is it 900, I keep hearing conflicting accounts), perhaps it wasn't that too many amendments were being offered. Perhaps instead it was what the amendments actually said that Senator Reid objected to. Maggie's Notebook offers a good sampling of the amendments that were rejected.

But Senator McCain isn't the real issue here anyway, as much as I would love to see his bid for the Republican Presidential nomination go down into flaming defeat. It's what he said about conservatives that's the issue. Senator Reid isn't the issue either.

The real issue is that both of these men recognize why the amnesty bill faltered last week. The bill faltered because conservatives spoke up and told their Senators how bad this bill really was, and some of them listened.

Conservatives are under-represented in Congress. Even so, conservative voices can still be heard when we are passionate enough. Perhaps it's time for conservatives to learn something from the socialist and anarchist left. Perhaps it's time for a conservative revolution. Our voices can be heard. We can get through to our representatives, even when men like John McCain and Russ Feingold do their worst to make sure that we don't.

Trackposted to Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Committees of Correspondence, DeMediacratic Nation, Maggie's Notebook, On the Horizon, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, third world county, stikNstein... has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Congress of darkness...

I told you it wasn't dead... now it looks like somebody's gotten a hold of the necronomicon. The travesty that is "comprehensive" immigration reform just won't die.

Harry Reid ended up looking like a fool when he crowed about killing the Patriot Act, the extension of which then went on to pass and be signed into law. So too conservative pundits and bloggers that have been crowing about the death of the illegal alien amnesty act of 2007 may end up looking like fools.

Politics these days is starting to take on a "B" movie flair.

Meanwhile, according to the same article mentioned above, it looks like Congress thinks the U.S. government is run like the British government. They want to debate a one-sentence measure today to declare a vote of "no confidence" in Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. Maybe in the United Kingdom a vote of no confidence means that a public official has to step down, but it doesn't work that way under our Constitution.

No, the only way Congress can force the ouster of the Attorney General requires his impeachment by the House of Representative and conviction by the Senate. Neither of those things is going to happen.

Of course, the President could always simply fire him, or ask for his resignation. That's what happened to those U.S. Attorneys a little while ago. And we all know that's what the Democratic leadership in Congress really wants anyway.

…

Don't you just love the consistency of the Democratic leadership these days? When the President of the United States, who just happens to be of the opposition party, exercises his Constitutional authority to have certain U.S. attorneys fired they call for all manner of investigations into the political motivations behind the action. At the very same time, they want the President to exercise his Constitutional authority to fire the Attorney General that carried out the President's wishes.

"Hey he fired people you wanted fired, so now we want you to fire him for it." Isn't there anyone left in the Democratic leadership that is a little more mature than say… Paris Hilton?

Well, there was Joe Lieberman… but he left after they turned on him.

Trackposted to Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Leaning Straight Up, Committees of Correspondence, third world county, Dumb Ox Daily News, and On the Horizon, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.