Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Amnesty Bill Vote Count

Here's how your Senators voted on reviving the dreaded amnesty bill:

YEAs ---64
Akaka (D-HI)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brownback (R-KS)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---35
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bunning (R-KY)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Not Voting - 1
Johnson (D-SD)

Amnesty Bill Advances

The US Senate just voted 64-35 to revive the god-awful, down right treasonous amnesty bill. Of course, this horrible piece of legislation, in any form, will not pass - at least not in the House. But here again, our out-of-touch, arrogant political leaders have once again ignored common sense, integrity and the will of the people to instead push a bill that would reward criminality, weaken American sovereignty, encourage more waves of illegal immigration and over-population, disenfranchise the American lower class by bringing a lower foreign class to undercut job opportunities, and all the way around fail to protect American security. Murderer-moron Edward Kennedy had this to say:
"This may not be perfect, but it is the best opportunity we have to do something significant and substantial, and I believe that the bill is good."
This bill is the complete opposite of "good." Doing "something" is in no way preferable if that "something" actually makes things worse. Last year you, our Senators, House representatives and President did do something "significant and substantial," by voting to fund a border fence. Of course that was just a lie for election purposes. The government has completely failed to follow through on actually supplying us with this layer of protection; much in the same way our government has failed to protect us and our Border Patrol agents from the violence of border crossing. In fact, those sworn to protect us, our patriotic officers, are vilified, attacked and imprisoned for doing that which is in the best interest of our country by these very slimeballs that now want to grant amnesty to intruders, trespassers, drug smugglers and dealers, gang bangers, murderers, assaulters, identity thieves and all around disrepecters of our nation, laws, culture and persons.

In the end, the US Senate serves special interests - those that profit from the hiring of illegal aliens, and the bigoted ethnic entitlementists, socialists and anarchists that wish to destroy liberty by slowly dismantling our republic.

More on Obama

Let's look a little more at what Obama had to say at a church convention on June 23, 2007.
At every opportunity, [the Christian Right have] told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and intelligent design," he said.
I've already discussed the hypocrisy in Obama's attacks on Christians who have right-leaning views, while at the same time trying to portray himself as some sort of "hope peddler." But what exactly is Obama trying to imply with this sentence? Rather than actually addressing his own stances on any of these issues, he cowardly dances away from them, pushing them aside, asserting they are not important. While it is true that the left often portrays the religious right as being single-minded in their concerns, simply because these issues may or may not be high priorities to some in no way suggests that these are their only concerns, nor that they lack opinions on other issues. But it would be a mistake to imply that they might agree with Obama on other issues. Plus, it is hardly true that the these issues are not high priorities for certain groups on the left, be they the pro-choice crowd, gay lobbies or the atheists. The left has gained plenty of mileage by scare-mongering about Supreme Court nominations and the possibility of a loss of "abortion rights." What Obama is really saying here is that making these particular issues a priority, emphasizing single issues, is some sort of a distraction. I'm sure NARAL and gay rights activists would be pleased to hear that.

So rather than actually telling us what he thinks, or would do, about these issues, he avoids substance completely. Much in the same way his attacks on the religious right are easy - he peddles "hope," but offers no solution. Why bother even addressing the perceived problem with the religious right if he offers no plan about it? It's a non-issue, as I seriously doubt he would propose legislation to "fix" it (or if he did, it would be wildly unconstitutional and fascist). He plays around with nothings rather than giving us answers to the somethings that concern a number of people on the left, on the rightm and in the middle. In fact he is really implying we should not really even care about these somethings. And as dismissive as he is to these issues, they are really important to a lot of folks. Some see abortion as murder, mass murder; some see it as a fundamental reproductive right. The key point of debate being the fundamental question: when does human life, and human rights and liberty, actually begin? Whatever your conclusion, not something to be brushed aside. The same with gay marriage - it's really very important to a lot of gay couples who view themselves as being discriminated against, and equally important to those religious individuals that believe society should not endorse or condone such behaviors.

Here's my advice to Obama. Don't even bring up issues if you are too cowardly to reveal your stance on each. Or, if you're legitimately unsure or undecided, tell us that. But do not attempt to sweep these issues under the rug in a pathetically transparent move to avoid giving the voting public the facts it deserves about you to make an informed opinion. If you want anyone's vote, they deserve to know where you really stand. Enough of your formless, wishy-washy image-making. Tell us what you really think; give us details. All we're getting now is worthless fluff.